A multidisciplinary, multinational movement to advance the rule of law for communities of opportunity and equity

The World Justice Project

Rule of Law Index®
2011

Mark David Agrast Juan Carlos Botero Alejandro Ponce The World Justice Project

The World Justice Project

Rule of Law Index®
2011

Mark David Agrast Juan Carlos Botero Alejandro Ponce t : D d t : 

W

^ W

The World Justice Project Board of Directors: Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad, Emil Constantinescu, Ashraf Ghani, William C. Hubbard, Mondli Makhanya, William H. Neukom, Ellen Gracie Northfleet, James R. Silkenat. Officers: William C. Hubbard, Chairman of the Board; William H. Neukom, President and Chief Executive Off icer; Deborah Enix-Ross, Vice President; Suzanne E. Gilbert, Vice President; James R. Silkenat, Vice President; Lawrence B. Bailey, Secretary; Roderick B. Mathews, Treasurer; Gerold W. Libby, General Counsel. Executive Director: Hongxia Liu. Rule of Law Index 2011 Team: Mark David Agrast, Chair; Juan Carlos Botero, Director; Alejandro Ponce, Senior Economist; Joel Martinez; Christine S. Pratt; Oussama Bouchebti; Kelly Roberts; Chantal V. Bright; Juan Manuel Botero; Nathan Menon; Raymond Webster; Chelsea Jaetzold; Claros Morean; Elsa Khwaja; Kristina Fridman. Consultants: Jose Caballero and Dounia Bennani. _________________________

The WJP Rule of Law Index® 2011 report was made possible by generous support from: The Neukom Family Foundation, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and LexisNexis. And from GE Foundation, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, National Endowment for Democracy, Oak Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Allen & Overy Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Chase Family Philanthropic Fund, Microsoft Corporation, LexisNexis, General Electric Company, Intel Corporation, The Boeing Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., HP, McKinsey & Company, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Texas Instruments, Inc., E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company; Viacom International, Inc., K & L Gates; Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Winston & Strawn LLP, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, White & Case LLP, Allen & Overy LLP, Hunton & Williams, Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stower, Mason, Hayes+Curran, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Garrigues LLP, Troutman Sanders LLP, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Turner Freeman Lawyers, Cochingyan & Peralta Law Offices, SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan, Major, Lindsey & Africa, Irish Aid, American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, American Bar Association Section of Health Law, American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property, American Bar Association Section of International Law, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and individual supporters listed in the last section of this report. _________________________ ISBN 978-0-615-51219-8 Copyright 2011 by The World Justice Project. The WJP Rule of Law Index and The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index are trademarks of The World Justice Project. All rights reserved. Requests to reproduce this document should be sent to Juan C. Botero, the World Justice Project, 740 Fifteenth Street, N.W. 2nd Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005 U.S.A. E-mail:boteroj@wjpnet.org Graphic design: Joshua Steele and Jonathan Kerr. Suggested citation: Agrast, M., Botero, J., Ponce, A., WJP Rule of Law Index 2011. Washington, D.C.: The World Justice Project.

.....................................5 Part II: The Rule of Law Around the World .....................................................Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 39 Data Tables ............................................................ 107 Data Notes ...............123 Part IV: Contributing Experts .............................................153 ....................... 21 Country Profiles ........................................................................................................................1 Part I: Constructing the WJP Rule of Law Index ... 117 Part III: Statistical Tests on the WJP Rule of Law Index............................................................................................................................19 Regional Highlights .............................................131 Part V: Acknowledgements ...147 About The World Justice Project .........................

» » The WJP Rule of Law Index The WJP Rule of Law Index presents a comprehensive set of indicators on the rule of law from the perspective of the ordinary person. and whether people can conduct their daily activities without fear of crime or police abuse. the rule of law refers to a rules-based system in which the following four universal principles are upheld: » » The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law. pandemics. and efficient. and other threats to civil society. 1 . for instance. and protect fundamental rights. and fair. safeguarding participation.000 academics and practitioners around the world who contributed their time and expertise. The systematic tracking of infant mortality rates. but in practice. whether a basic dispute among neighbors or companies can be peacefully and cost-effectively resolved by an independent adjudicator. the WJP Rule of Law Index monitors the health of a country’s institutional environment—such as whether government officials are accountable under the law. publicized. President and CEO of the World Justice Project Advancing the rule of law around the world is the central goal of the World Justice Project (WJP). and respect for fundamental rights. attorneys or representatives.000 respondents per country) and local legal experts1. and firms’ costs increase because of expropriation risk. and enforced is accessible. medicines do not reach health facilities due to corruption.” William H. The Index provides new data on the following nine dimensions of the rule of law: » » » » » » » » » Limited government powers Absence of corruption Order and security Fundamental rights Open government Effective regulatory enforcement Access to civil justice Effective criminal justice Informal justice Executive Summary “The rule of law is the foundation for communities of opportunity and equity—it is the predicate for the eradication of poverty. corruption. administered. the Index evaluates whether citizens Access to justice is provided by competent. ensuring security. Indices and indicators are very useful tools. The process by which the laws are enacted. fair. This report is the second in an annual series. The outcome of this exercise is one of the world’s most comprehensive data sets measuring the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law—not in theory but in practice. and ethical adjudicators. and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve. The rule of law is the cornerstone to improving public health. accountable government. Defining the rule of law As used by the World Justice Project. The laws are clear.Executive Summary can access public services without the need to bribe a government officer. Establishing the rule of law is fundamental to achieving communities of opportunity and equity— communities that offer sustainable economic development.000 individuals who participated in the general population poll. The WJP Rule of Law Index® is an innovative quantitative assessment tool designed to offer a comprehensive picture of the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law. including the security of persons and property. Without the rule of law. violence. 1 We are grateful for the generous engagement of the over 2. and the 66. It examines practical situations in which a rule of law deficit may affect the daily lives of ordinary people. For instance. has greatly contributed to improving health outcomes around the globe. women in rural areas remain unaware of their rights. In a similar fashion. have adequate resources. Founder. These nine factors are further disaggregated into 52 sub-factors. stable. and judicial officers who are of sufficient number. The scores of these sub-factors are built from over 400 variables drawn from assessments of the general public (1. and fighting poverty. not in theory. independent. Neukom. and whether legal institutions protect fundamental rights and allow ordinary people access to justice. people are killed in criminal violence.

this tool will help identify strengths and weaknesses in each country under review and encourage policy choices that advance the rule of law. individual country findings in the 2011 report are not comparable to the previous year’s results. they do not yield a full picture of rule of law compliance. This report introduces the framework of the WJP Rule of Law Index and summarizes the results and lessons learned during the WJP’s implementation of the Index in 66 jurisdictions. and Track changes over time. New data. non-governmental organizations. 2011. and other constituencies. While other indices cover aspects of the rule of law. “Measuring the Rule of Law”. multidisciplinary collaboration Despite these methodological strengths. factor 3 (Clear. and other constituencies to: » » » Assess a nation’s adherence to the rule of law in practice. and methods. it does not provide a full diagnosis or dictate concrete priorities for action. The sub-factors of factor 2 (Absence of Corruption) have been redefined to their current status. civil society. It is based on two complementary premises: first.WJP Rule of Law Index These principles are derived from international sources that enjoy broad acceptance across countries with differing social. Finally.org. The Index findings are based almost entirely on new data collected by the WJP from independent sources. taking the “temperature” of the rule of law in the countries under study.worldjusticeproject. practitioners. because country scores are normalized across the entire sample of indexed countries. First. Anchored in actual experiences. available online at www. No single index can convey a full picture of a country’s situation. and disaggregated information for policy makers. and criminal recidivism. independent. Findings are presented in disaggregated form. or on sources that are self-reported by governments or other interested parties. Action oriented. While the Index is helpful in 2 . identifying strong and weak performers across the nine rule of law dimensions examined in each country. civil conflict. Rule of law in practice. economic. However. This contrasts it with other indices based on data aggregated from third-party sources. It offers reliable. Publicized and Stable Laws) and factor 6 (Open Government) from the 2010 report have been merged to form factor 5 of the current report. Third. Country profiles for these countries are based chiefly on new data collected during the second quarter of 2011. While the WJP Rule of Law Index enters a crowded field of indicators on different aspects of the rule of law. The Index measures adherence to the rule of law by looking not to the laws as written but at how they are actually applied in practice. and political systems. The Index 2011 report introduces four conceptual and methodological changes. in the measurement of factor 3 (Order and Security) a few variables from third-party sources have been incorporated into the Index. and second. the findings should be interpreted in light of certain inherent limitations. Changes introduced in 2011 are explained in the Data Notes section of this report. freedom of assembly and association. and further methodological details are provided in Botero and Ponce. The Index is intended for a broad audience of policy-makers. including marginalized sectors of society. businesses. and incorporate both substantive and procedural elements. We hope that over time. the rule of law is the foundation for communities of opportunity and equity. Uses of the Index The WJP Rule of Law Index is an instrument for strengthening the rule of law. It is anticipated that global coverage will expand to 100 countries in 2012. instruments. cultural. for the first time data has been collected on transition of power. it has a number of features that set it apart: » Comprehensiveness. More than half of the countries included in the 2011 report were also indexed in 2010. due process in administrative proceedings. Identify a nation’s strengths and weaknesses in comparison to similarly situated countries. academics. Rule of law analysis requires a careful consideration of multiple dimensions—which may vary from country to country—and a combination of sources. The Index combines expert opinion with rigorous polling of the general public to ensure that the findings reflect the conditions experienced by the population. » » » » About the World Justice Project The World Justice Project (WJP) is a multinational and multidisciplinary effort to strengthen the rule of law throughout the world.

developing practical programs in support of the rule of law at the community level. .org.worldjusticeproject. The Project’s efforts are dedicated to increasing public awareness about the concept and practice of the rule of law. the Rule of Law Index. and Scholarship. and stimulating government reforms that enhance the rule of law. Further details are provided in the last section of this report and at www.is the most effective way to advance the rule of law. The WJP’s work is being carried out through three complementary and mutually reinforcing program areas: Mainstreaming.

Dumas. or review of the data and results (Part II of this report). analysis.Part I: Constructing the WJP Rule of Law Index Mark David Agrast1. 2 This section builds on previous work developed in collaboration with Claudia J. . and Alejandro Ponce The World Justice Project2 1 Mr. Agrast did not participate in the collection. Juan Carlos Botero.

order and security.000 experts and 66. or whether people can conduct their daily activities without fear of crime or police abuse. whether people can access public services without the need to bribe a government officer. absence of corruption. The Index provides new data on the following nine dimensions of the rule of law: limited government powers. Data comes from a global poll of the general public and detailed questionnaires administered to local experts. To date. access to civil justice. It considers practical situations in which a rule of law deficit may affect the daily lives of people.000 other individuals from around the world have participated in this project. The Index’s rankings and scores are the product of a rigorous data collection and aggregation process. effective criminal justice. The Index introduces new indicators on the rule of law from the perspective of the ordinary person. whether a basic dispute among neighbors or companies can be peacefully and cost-effectively resolved by an independent adjudicator. and informal justice. fundamental rights. effective regulatory enforcement. These nine factors are further disaggregated into 52 sub-factors. For instance. open government. over 2. The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 is the second 7 .Constructing the Index Constructing the WJP Rule of Law Index The WJP Rule of Law Index® is an innovative quantitative assessment tool designed to offer a detailed and comprehensive picture of the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice.

consumers. Every nation faces the Box 1. and vetting with academics. doctors. cultural.WJP Rule of Law Index report in an annual series. economic. Version 3. The rule of law in everyday life / t  t K h (c) Public health D  / > (a) Business environment Imagine an investor seeking to commit resources ^  d / to businessmen. featuring preliminary findings for 35 countries. The current report introduces a slightly modified version of the Index presented in 2010 for 66 countries.0 of the Index was presented at the first World Justice Forum in 2008. practitioners. featuring a new version of the Index and country profiles for the same 35 countries. It builds on four years of development.0 was presented at the second World Justice Forum in 2009. No society has ever attained—let alone sustained—a perfect realization of the rule of law. We anticipate that the Index will expand to cover 100 countries in 2012. and community leaders from over 100 countries and 17 professional disciplines. and  Figure 1: Corruption in public health services 35% 30% 25% ^ (b) Public works 20% 15% 10% d / witnessed devastating earthquakes causing buildings / 5% 0% Low income Lower-middle income Upper-middle income High income Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database 8 . It should be emphasized that the Index is intended to be applied in countries with vastly differing social. including findings from a pilot conducted in six countries. builders.0 was launched in October 2010. Version 2. intensive consultation. including updated data for the 35 countries indexed in 2010 plus new data for 31 additional countries. Version 1. and political systems.

On one hand. The four “universal principles” that emerged from our deliberations are featured in box 2. had the vote). and norms that can support and sustain a rule of law culture. former Chief Justice of South Africa. The principles and the factors derived from them were tested and refined through extensive consultations with experts from around the world to ensure. among other things. What was missing was the substantive component of the rule of law. its officers and agents were accountable in accordance with the laws. Thus. institutions.The process by which the laws were made was not fair (only whites. Having reviewed the extensive literature on the subject. procedural rules. or other biases. that the rule of law is‘an empty vessel into which any law could be poured’. and stable. it was recognized that for the principles to be broadly accepted. Among other things. avoiding Western. Box 2. vested broad discretionary powers in the executive. it was recognized that the rule of law must be more than merely a system of rules—that indeed. A few examples may be instructive: » The principles address the extent to which a country provides for fair participation in the making of the laws—certainly an essential attribute of self-government. On the other hand. incorporating both substantive and procedural elements—a decision which was broadly endorsed by the many international experts with whom we have consulted. Anglo-American. the principles were derived to the greatest extent possible from established international standards and norms. and failed to protect fundamental rights. and informed by a thorough review of national constitutions and scholarly literature. [T]he apartheid government. But the principles do not address the further question of whether the laws are enacted by democratically elected representatives. including some which lack many of the features that characterize democratic nations. The principles address the extent to which Defining the rule of law The design of the Index began with the effort to formulate a set of principles that would constitute a working definition of the rule of law. a minority of the population. and a “thick” conception that includes substantive characteristics. a system of positive law that fails to respect core human rights guaranteed under international law is at best “rule by law”. And the laws themselves were not fair.Constructing the Index perpetual challenge of building and renewing the structures. formal. and does not deserve to be called a rule of law system. the laws were clear. They institutionalized discrimination. it was felt that if the Index was to have utility and gain wide acceptance. sometimes voiced. Without a substantive content there would be no answer to the criticism. and were upheld by law enforcement officials and judges. In the words of Arthur Chaskalson. These principles represent an effort to strike a balance between thinner and thicker conceptions of the rule of law. such as self-government and various fundamental rights and freedoms. the definition must be broadly applicable to many types of social and political systems. Four Universal Principles of the Rule of Law d t:W d d d It also was recognized that any effort to define the rule of law must grapple with the distinction between what scholars call a “thin” or minimalist conception of the rule of law that focuses on » 9 . their cultural competence. publicized. they must be culturally universal. the project team was profoundly conscious of the many challenges such an effort entails.

Accountable Government (Factors 1 and 2) The first principle measures government accountability by means of two factors: » » Factor 1: Limited Government Powers Factor 2: Absence of Corruption » Limited Government Powers The first factor measures the extent to which those who govern are subject to law. Moreover. “Citizen’s Advocate”. “Human Rights Commissioner”. and civic and political organizations. since there is no single formula for the proper distribution of powers among organs of the government to ensure that each is held in check. It is our hope that by providing data on nine independent dimensions of the rule of law. depending on the prevailing cultural and institutional environments. “Avocatul Poporului”). 10 . For example. political. fundamental rights. In some countries these functions are performed by judges or other state officials. primarily civil and political. economic. all of which are addressed in other important and influential indices. The 2011 WJP Rule of Law Index This new version of the Index is composed of nine factors derived from the WJP’s universal principles. they do not operate solely in systems marked by a formal separation of powers. Indeed. and whether transfers of power occur in accordance with the law. It also includes nongovernmental checks on the government’s power. The Index does not address the further question of whether the laws are enacted by democratically elected representatives. “Ouvidoria”. Governmental checks take many forms. we do not wish to suggest any disagreement with a more robust and inclusive vision of self-government. These factors are divided into 52 sub-factors which incorporate essential elements of the rule of law. effective sanctions for misconduct of government officers and agents in all branches of government. they are carried out by independent agencies. But given the impossibility of assessing adherence to the full panoply of civil. concrete improvements in one dimension of the rule of law may affect societies in more than one way. whether by formal rules or by convention. the Index will become a useful tool for academics and other constituencies to further our understanding of these interactions. in others. “People’s Advocate”. It comprises the means. cultural. that are firmly established under international law and bear the most immediate relationship to rule of law concerns. “Õiguskantsler”. What is essential is that authority is distributed. “Defensor del Pueblo”. Access to justice in this more limited sense is a critical cornerstone for the implementation of policies and rights that empower the poor. from financial comptrollers and auditing agencies to the diverse array of entities that monitor human rights compliance (e. institutional checks on government power by the legislature. “Médiateur de la République”.1 The factor measures the effective limitation of government powers in the fundamental law. the judiciary and independent auditing and review agencies2. the WJP’s conception of the rule of law is not incompatible with the notion that these universal principles may interact with each other in multiple ways. but chiefly in terms of access to legal representation and access to the courts.g. rather than in the “thicker” sense in which access to justice is sometimes seen as synonymous with broad legal empowerment of the poor and disfranchised. the principles treat a more modest menu of rights. such as a free and independent press. This factor is particularly difficult to measure in a standardized manner across countries. and environmental rights recognized in the Universal Declaration. 3 This includes the media. as well as in various papers developed by WJP scholars. social. or access to justice. citizen activism. “Human Rights Defender”. 2 This includes a wide range of institutions. “Ombudsman”. both constitutional and institutional. 1 In limiting the scope of the principles in this fashion.WJP Rule of Law Index a country protects fundamental human rights. by which the powers of the government and its officials and agents are limited and by which they are held accountable under the law. nor are they necessarily codified in law. in a manner that ensures that no single organ of government has the practical ability to exercise unchecked power. The principles address access to justice. it is among the premises of the project as a whole that a healthy rule of law is critical to advancing such goals. non-governmental checks on government power3.

Constructing the Index WJP Rule of Law Index Factor 1: Limited Government Powers ' ' ' ' ' ' d Factor 2: Absence of Corruption ' ' ' ' Factor 3: Order and Security   W Factor 4: Fundamental Rights  d  & & d & & Factor 5: Open Government d d d d K K Factor 6: Effective Regulatory Enforcement ' '  d W W W      Z ' Factor 7: Access to Civil Justice Factor 8: Effective Criminal Justice   d d d d d Factor 9: Informal Justice / / / 11 .

gender. Accordingly. the number of battle-related deaths. 5 Source: Center for Systemic Peace. burglary. Despite these difficulties. ethnic or social origin. It encompasses three dimensions: absence of crime4. among others. These include. from petty bribery to major kinds of fraud. religion. 6 Source: Uppsala Conflict Data Program. language. the prohibition of forced and child labor. and as it would be impossible for the Index to assess adherence to the full range of rights. factor 4 covers effective enforcement of laws that ensure equal protection7. there was spirited discussion over which rights should be encompassed within the Index.WJP Rule of Law Index Absence of Corruption The second factor measures the absence of corruption. even as newer rights continue to emerge and gain acceptance. can occur. and administrative enforcement of environmental. Others argued for a broader treatment that would encompass social. nationality. and theft. A few variables from third-party sources have been incorporated into this factor in order to measure structural rule of law situations that may not be captured through general population polls or expert opinion. labor. color. and misappropriation of public funds or other resources. among others. and the number of casualties resulting from “one-sided violence”. and cultural rights. 7 The laws can be fair only if they do not make arbitrary or irrational distinctions based on economic or social status—the latter defined to include race. which bear an essential relationship to the rule of law itself. absence of civil conflict. (2) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor. Our instruments take into account a wide range of possible situations in which corruption. improper influence by public or private interests. particularly freedom of thought and opinion. and expression. Sixty years after its adoption. (3) the effective abolition of child labor. political opinion or affiliation. economic. and (4) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. and absence of violence as a socially acceptable means to redress personal grievances. Many urged that the list be confined to civil and political rights. it was determined that only an inclusive list would accord full respect to the principles of equality and non-discrimination embodied in the Universal Declaration and emerging norms of international law. and does not deserve to be called a rule of law system. It must be acknowledged that for some societies. a system of positive law that fails to respect core human rights guaranteed and established under international law is at best “rule by law”. and health and safety regulations. kidnapping. religion. 8 Sub-factor 4. and disability. it was determined as a practical matter that since there are many other indices that address human rights in all of these dimensions. including some traditional societies. These three forms of corruption are examined with respect to government officers in the executive branch (including the police and the military). In addition. alienage. 4 This factor focuses on conventional crime. While the debate may never be fully resolved. and those in the judiciary and the legislature. the Universal Declaration remains the touchstone for determining which rights may be considered fundamental. At WJP regional meetings conducted in 2008 and 2009. including terrorism and armed conflict. freedom of assembly and association. and the elimination of discrimination)8. age. The Index considers three forms of corruption: bribery. Fundamental Rights The fourth factor measures protection of fundamental human rights. certain of these categories may be problematic. caste. there may be differences both within and among such societies as to whether a given distinction is arbitrary or irrational. the Index should focus on a relatively modest menu of rights that are firmly established under international law and are most closely related to rule of law concerns. marital status. the number of events and deaths resulting from high-casualty terrorist bombings5. fundamental labor rights (including the right to collective bargaining. sexual orientation or gender identity. including homicide. Security and Fundamental Rights (Factors 3 and 4) The second principle encompasses two factors: » » Factor 3: Order and Security Factor 4: Fundamental Rights Order and Security The third factor measures how well the society assures the security of persons and property. It recognizes that the rule of law must be more than merely a system of rules—that indeed. including the provision of public services.6 These indicators are proxies for civil conflict (sub-factor 3.2). freedom of thought. 12 . procurement procedures.8 includes the four fundamental principles recognized by the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work of 1998: (1) the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.

and explained to the general public in plain language. This requires that the law be comprehensible and its meaning sufficiently clear. 8. and religious courts. procedural hurdles. opportunity to challenge evidence. adherence to administrative procedures that are fair. impartial. Among the indicia of participation are: whether people have the right to petition the government. and enforced is accessible. and due process of law and the rights of the accused. while ensuring that the rights of suspects and victims are protected. as well as decisions that are free of improper influence by public officials or private interests. availability and affordability of legal advice and representation. The Index does not measure the presence or absence of particular forms of regulation or examine how much regulation of a particular activity is appropriate. rather than resorting to violence or self-help. records of legislative and administrative proceedings. personal security. This includes the absence of improper influence by public officials or private interests. and freedom from government taking of private property without adequate compensation. Factor 5 measures open government. Rather. as well as community based systems – in resolving disputes. and absence of excessive or unreasonable fees. for them to be able to abide by it. members of the media. This is one of the most basic preconditions for achieving and maintaining a rule of law society capable of guaranteeing public order. which includes at its core the opportunity to know what the law is and what conduct is permitted and prohibited. and ordinary people. These systems often play a large role in cultures in which formal legal institutions fail to provide effective remedies for large segments of the 13 . Accessibility includes general awareness of available remedies. publicized. fair. and other forms of bias. consistent.Constructing the Index the rights to privacy and religion. illegal detention. Open Government and Effective Regulatory Enforcement (Factors 5 and 6) The third principle includes two factors: » » Factor 5: Open Government Factor 6: Effective Regulatory Enforcement Access to Justice (Factors 7. access to legal counsel and translators. torture and extrajudicial execution—perpetrated by agents of the state against criminal suspects. and other barriers to access to formal dispute resolution systems. These factors measure whether ordinary people can peacefully and effectively resolve their grievances in accordance with generally accepted social norms. and 9) The fourth and final principle measures access to justice by means of three factors: » » » Factor 7: Access to Civil Justice Factor 8: Effective Criminal Justice Factor 9: Informal Justice Factors 5 and 6 concern the extent to which the process by which the laws are enacted. and prisoners’ rights. and culturally competent. factor 9 concerns the role played in many countries by “informal” systems of law – including traditional. effective. Factor 6 concerns the fair and effective enforcement of administrative regulations. whether proceedings are held with timely notice and are open to the public. and other kinds of official information are available to the public. abusive treatment of suspects and detainees.2 concerns police brutality and other abuses—including arbitrary detention. it seeks to assess how well regulations are implemented and 9 Sub-factor 4. Impartiality includes absence of arbitrary or irrational distinctions based on social or economic status. Access to civil justice requires that the system be affordable. the right to life and security of the person9. administered. and whether drafts of legislation. 10 This includes the presumption of innocence. Effective criminal justice systems are capable of investigating and adjudicating criminal offences impartially and effectively. and predictable. Finally. Open government also encompasses the opportunity to participate in the process by which the laws are made and administered. tribal. and efficient. political dissidents. and fundamental rights. Access to justice also requires fair and effective enforcement.10 enforced.

and public health.000 respondents in three cities per country.WJP Rule of Law Index population. Nonetheless. Some examples of outcomes measured by the Index include respect for fundamental rights. by which a given society may seek to attain them. the complexities of these systems and the difficulties of measuring their fairness and effectiveness in a manner that is both systematic and comparable across countries. and to local experts. designed by The World Justice Project and conducted by leading local polling companies using a representative sample of 1. our aim is to provide a picture of where countries stand with regard to a number of widely accepted outcomes that rule of law societies seek to achieve. as opposed to measuring the institutional means. and (ii) a qualified respondents’ questionnaire (QRQ) consisting of closed ended questions completed by in-country practitioners and academics with expertise in civil and commercial law.11 Measuring the rule of law The WJP Rule of Law Index is a first attempt to quantify systematically and comprehensively a set of rule of law outcomes by linking the conceptual definitions to concrete questions. A preliminary overview of informal justice will be included in the WJP Rule of Law Index 2012. labor law. make assessments extraordinarily challenging. / d d d / /  W E Data The WJP’s Rule of Law Index methodology utilizes two main sources of new data: (i) a general population poll (GPP). absence of corruption. More specifically. and then are analyzed and cross-checked pursuant to a rigorous triangulation methodology. Box 3: The WJP Rule of Law Index methodology in a nutshell d d t:W / t:W Z > / d / / Questionnaires were translated into several languages d d Approach W The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 measures outcomes rather than inputs. The outcome of this exercise is one of the world’s most comprehensive data sets regarding adherence to the rule of law in practice. and the judicial budget. W d & /  ^ h   : Z  collaboration with the Index team. the number of police officers. criminal justice. 11 Significant effort has been devoted during the last two years to collecting data on informal justice in a dozen countries. to assess the & 14 . These questions are then administered to a representative sample of the general public. such as the legal and regulatory frameworks. and access to justice. Examples of inputs might include the number of courts.

Findings are presented in disaggregated form.Constructing the Index Box 4: Law in practice vs. The Index findings are based almost entirely on new data collected by the WJP from independent sources. 2. existing domestic and international data sources and legal resources is used to cross-check the findings.000 experts from 66 nations and jurisdictions have contributed their knowledge and expertise to the Index. The Index measures adherence to the rule of law by looking not to the laws as written but to how they are actually applied. the Index’s findings must be interpreted in light of certain inherent limitations. and the GPP is carried out every three years. and Track changes over time. over 2. To date. The countries indexed in this volume are presented in Table 1. organized into nine factors and 52 subfactors. These variables are aggregated and compiled into numerical scores. In addition. It is designed to offer a reliable and independent data source for policy makers. » While other indices touch on various aspects of the rule of law. Anchored in actual experiences. 1. or on sources that are self-reported by governments or other interested parties. The Index comprises more than 400 different variables. businesses. Data presented in this volume was collected and analyzed in the second quarter of 2011. The WJP Rule of Law Index does not provide specific recipes or identify priorities for reform. A detailed description of the process by which data is collected and the rule of law is measured is provided in the final section of this report. / de jure) but at how (de facto h > / t:W Z Using the WJP Rule of Law Index The WJP Rule of Law Index is intended for multiple audiences. nongovernmental organizations. While existing indices cover aspects of the rule of law. some variables from thirdparty sources have been incorporated into this version of the Index. This contrasts with indices based on data aggregated from third-party sources. » The QRQ is administered on a yearly basis in each surveyed country. » New data. identifying areas of strength and weakness across the nine rule of law dimensions examined in each country. they do not yield a full picture of rule of law compliance. and other constituencies to: » Assess a nation’s adherence to the rule of law in practice. The Index data is not intended to establish 15 . which was collected during the fall of 2009. The Index combines expert opinion with rigorous polling of the general public to ensure that the findings reflect the conditions experienced by the population. as perceived and experienced by the average person. with the exception of general population data for the initial 35 countries. to capture certain structural rule of law situations such as terrorist bombings and battle-related deaths that may not be captured through general population polls or expert opinion. and in Botero and Ponce (2011). over 66.000 individuals from these countries have participated in the general population poll. » » Action oriented. Identify a nation’s strengths and weaknesses in comparison to similarly situated countries. Finally. the WJP Rule of Law Index has new features that set it apart: » Comprehensiveness. In addition. law on books / . including marginalized sectors of society. These features make the Index a powerful tool that can inform policy debates in and across countries. » Rule of law in practice. However.

The Index’s rankings and scores are the product of a very rigorous data collection and aggregation methodology. . > h . h . available online at: www.12 Indices and indicators are subject to potential abuse and misinterpretation. > . Table 1: Countries Indexed in 2011  Albania Argentina Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Bolivia  Bulgaria Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile China Colombia Croatia  Z  Z El Salvador Estonia  & ' ' ' . > > . h > . instruments and methods. > h > . 12 Users of the Index for policy debate who wish to have a sound understanding of its methodology are encouraged to review the following papers: a. > . 5. Saisana. which are discussed in greater detail in Botero and Ponce (2011). . h h > . (2011) “Measuring the Rule of Law”. Botero. 1. Users are encouraged to consult the specific definitions of the variables employed in the construction of the Index. h > > 3. The Index is generally intended to be used in combination with other instruments.org b. 7. < ^ Z  India Indonesia Iran / Jamaica : Jordan < < < > > D Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria E Pakistan Peru W Poland Z Z Senegal ^ ^ ^ < ^ Sweden Thailand d h  h h h < h ^ s Vietnam Source: The World Bank Z   >  t  South Asia t  > >    ^ ^ t  >  >     > >   ^ ^ t  t  ^ ^ >  South Asia  D  t  >  D    ^ ^   D  ^ ^  > D  t   ^ ^ t  South Asia >        ^ ^  ^ ^  t  t     D  ^ ^   t  t  >    W E E    W E  W       E E  W W E E  W E   E W  E E W E  W    W W E E W  E  E E  W / h h . 4. . . . available online at: www. they can take on a life of their own and be used for purposes unanticipated by their creators. The Index does not provide a full diagnosis or dictate concrete priorities for action. they are subject to measurement error. > > h . Just as in the areas of health or economics no single index conveys a full picture of a country’s situation. > h > > h > h h > . . Policymaking in the area of rule of law requires careful consideration of all relevant dimensions—which may vary from country to country—and a combination of sources. Once released to the public. These confidence intervals and other relevant considerations regarding measurement error are reported in Saisana and Saltelli (2011) and Botero and Ponce (2011). J and Ponce. 6.org 16 . h > h . If data is taken out of context. M and Saltelli. Nonetheless.worldjusticeproject. > . both quantitative and qualitative. confidence intervals have been calculated for all figures included in the WJP Rule of Law Index 2011.WJP Rule of Law Index causation or to ascertain the complex relationship among different rule of law dimensions in various countries. Pursuant to the sensitivity analysis of the Index data conducted in collaboration with the Econometrics and Applied Statistics Unit of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. h . > h h > > . A. as with all measures. it can lead to unintended or erroneous policy decisions. WJP Working Paper No. > > . (2011) “Statistical Audit of the WJP Rule of Law Index”. A. . Rule of law concepts measured by the Index may have different meanings across countries.worldjusticeproject.

Publication of topic-specific reports and other comparative materials. Detailed discussions of Index findings at successive World Justice Forums and regional outreach meetings will generate useful information for further refinement of the Index methodology and measurement. with the next steps including: » » Expanded coverage to include a total of 100 countries by 2012. enabling a more detailed discussion of concrete issues covered by the Index. as well as an opportunity to disseminate the results of both the Index and WJP programs.Constructing the Index Complementarity with other WJP initiatives The Index’s development is highly integrated with other dimensions of the WJP. » The Index findings for a growing number of countries will be presented and discussed in detail at successive World Justice Forums and WJP regional conferences. The Index remains a work in progress. WJP scholars will provide conceptual and methodological advice for the improvement and expansion of the Index. and the Index’s findings and data will be made available to researchers around the world. » » » » Next steps This volume presents the results and lessons learned during the WJP’s implementation of the Index in 66 countries in 2011. Many of the issues identified by the Index in various countries will become fertile areas for the design of rule of law programs by Forum participants. 17 . The results of various WJP programs will be presented at each World Justice Forum.

or its Officers. Joel Martinez. Alejandro Ponce. Directors. and Honorary Chairs.Part II: The Rule of Law Around the World Juan Carlos Botero. and Christine S. Pratt The World Justice Project1 1 Country assessments are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the World Justice Project. .

Adherence to the rule of law varies widely around the world and appears to be positively correlated with per capita income. Western Europe and North America Countries in Western Europe and North America tend to outperform most other countries in all dimensions. countries in Western Europe obtain higher scores than the United States. While protection of fundamental rights in this region is the highest in the world. The greatest weakness in Western Europe and North America appears to be related to the accessibility of the civil justice system. In most dimensions. and Norway rank 42nd. open and accountable governments. 50th. the United States. The average rankings for each region are shown in Table 2. especially for marginalized segments of the population. Latin America and the Caribbean. In the area of access to legal counsel. Additional scores and rankings are available in Botero and Ponce [2011]. These countries are characterized by relatively low levels of corruption. which covers 66 countries. and 48th. 21 . East Asia and Pacific. respectively. This section also presents highlights for a number of countries in each of seven regions: Western Europe and North America. for instance. These are areas that require attention from both policy makers and civil society to ensure that all people are able to benefit from the civil justice system. The detailed rankings are shown in the data tables at the end of the report. South Asia. Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Italy. and effective criminal justice systems. Canada. Middle East and North Africa.Regional Trends Regional Highlights The following section provides an overview of regional trends revealed by the WJP Rule of Law Index® 2011 report. police discrimination against foreigners and ethnic minorities remains an issue in need of attention in most countries. and Sub-Saharan Africa. 54th.

ranking fourth and sixth. it is not as accessible and affordable as others in the region. France performs well in all eight dimensions of the rule of law. and generally observe fundamental rights. is perceived to occur. with criminal courts displaying an outstanding respect for due process of law. order and security. and corruption is minimal. respectively. Government accountability is strong (ranking 6th out of 66 countries) and corruption is minimal (ranking 12th). The country’s notable strengths include absence of corruption and an independent. and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. and France. including the United States. Germany. The correctional system underperforms its income-group and regional peers. people in Austria face more difficulties in accessing official documentation than do individuals in most developed nations. The country is ranked fourth out of the ten Western European countries covered by the Index in the following dimensions: absence of corruption. and effective regulatory enforcementand is located in the top five in seven of the eight categories. open government. Germany is one of the world’s leaders in many dimensions of the rule of law. Sweden’s administrative agencies and courts are rated among the most effective and transparent in the world. and access to civil justice. The Netherlands ranks among the top three in three categories -fundamental rights. It scores well on government accountability (ranking ninth). access to civil justice.WJP Rule of Law Index The country’s civil justice system ranks 2nd out of all countries. In addition. Sweden ranks first in three of eight areas -fundamental rights.and it places no lower than fifth in all but one of the rule of law indicators. The overall regulatory environment is transparent and efficient. While the court system is independent and free of undue influence. Norway also ranks first in three areas -government accountability. and lack of undue influence. Table 2: Average rankings by region & > K & K Z  '  ^ Z '    : : W SubSaharan 51 52 58 52 60 53 43 46 Eastern East Asia  W Central Asia 30 26 21 32 26 32 41 24 50 40 29 33 40 38 34 38 Western Middle >   South Asia E North Caribbean America 9 13 14 12 11 11 10 12 39 44 53 35 36 38 38 50 39 38 34 56 41 29 28 39 48 58 65 48 54 58 62 40 Source: WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database 22 . particularly for disadvantaged groups. however. Police discrimination against foreigners. which is characterized by the affordability of attorneys. accessibility and efficiency of courts. where they rank first in the world. and affordable civil justice system. and effective criminal justice. Although the country is very open. judicial delays are a weakness in both The Nordic countries rank at the top in most dimensions of the rule of law. police discrimination against foreigners is perceived to be significant. Norway’s public institutions are very strong. The country’s courts are accessible and free of improper influence. accessible. The United Kingdom is among the top countries in the world in the areas of open government and effective regulatory enforcement. although access to affordable legal counsel remains limited. Police discrimination against foreigners and ethnic minorities is perceived to be a problem in both countries. respect for fundamental rights. Nonetheless. Austria ranks among the top ten in all eight dimensions of the rule of law. open government. Access to justice is generally guaranteed to citizens in both countries.and performs very well in most of the other five dimensions measured by the Index.

and Naples). open government. . particularly in protecting labor rights and preventing interference in its citizens’ privacy. as well as in the areas of government accountability. order and security. which contrasts with the relatively poor performance of other high-income countries. In the areas of effective criminal justice and effective regulatory enforcement.and in effectively enforcing government regulations. and deficient legal security. where it ranks second to last in the Western Europe and North America region. Milan. and respect for due process of law. discrimination against immigrants and the poor remains a source of concern (ranking 30th). Belgium stands out for its high scores in government accountability and protection of fundamental rights.Regional Trends civil and criminal justice. The United States obtains high marks in most dimensions of the rule of law. religion. and police discrimination are also areas in need of attention. Legal assistance is expensive or unavailable (ranking 52nd). On the other hand. However. and the gap between rich and poor individuals in terms of both actual use of and satisfaction with the civil courts system remains significant (see box 5). Spain obtains high marks in guaranteeing fundamental rights. there is a general perception that ethnic minorities and foreigners receive unequal treatment from the police and the courts. Belgium lags behind most regional and income-group peers. This can be partially explained by shortcomings in the affordability of legal advice and representation. Lack of government accountability. The judicial system is independent. In addition. where cases can take years to resolve. including the rights of association. Belgium obtains high marks in all eight categories. even though police discrimination against foreigners is perceived to be significant. Italy ranks 12th in seven of the eight rule of law dimensions. although there are significant variations across the three cities polled (Rome. opinion and expression. judicial delays in civil cases are a source of concern. Out of 12 countries covered in the region. However. delays in administrative and judicial 23 decisions. Italy is the weakest performer of the countries in the Western Europe and North America region measured by the Index. police discrimination against foreigners. and petition. but it remains inaccessible to disadvantaged groups (ranking 21st). access to legal counsel. and access to civil justice. Italy earns high marks in the areas of judicial independence and protection of fundamental rights. even though police discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities is perceived to be a problem. France also obtains high marks in the areas of effective regulatory enforcement and protection of fundamental rights. absence of corruption. However. and effective criminal justice. The civil justice system is independent and free of undue influence. Canada is among the top ten countries in the world in four categories of the rule of law: limited government powers. and affordable. Canada’s lowest scores are in the area of access to civil justice — where it ranks 16th out of the 23 high income countries indexed this year. ineffective enforcement of civil justice. and the lengthy duration of civil cases. The country stands out for its well-functioning system of checks and balances and for its good results in guaranteeing civil liberties among its people. Corruption is minimal and the country generally observes fundamental rights. respectively both constitute significant institutional weaknesses. Spain lags behind its regional and income-group peers in providing mechanisms for public participation . Corruption within the judiciary and impunity of government officials where the country ranks 27th and 35th.including the right to petition public authorities . accessible. Italy ranks last among high-income countries in the areas of open government. order and security. Judicial delays. are also sources of concern.

0 SA R en y ce ay ria lia ly n E n nd an ni UA re pa an bl or ai do rw an ed na ra I ta iu at to Sp ng Ko rm pu ap la Ja al lg St oa Cr st Au ng No Sw er Ze Ca Es Be Ko Ge Au Re ng h th Ki ut Ne ng Ne i te ec So Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database Un Cz Ho t In numerous countries.0 0. however.WJP Rule of Law Index Box 5: Equal Access to Justice t : W  d t Figure 2: Access to civil justice in high-income countries 1. access to justice Figure 3: Use of formal dispute mechanisms in Germany and the United States d / 6% Low Income 5% High income d ' ' t h ^ 4% 3% 2% d h ^ ' d t 1% 0% Filed lawsuit Germany Took no ac on Filed lawsuit Took no ac on United States Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database  h < 24 Un i te w d h Si d Po Fr st la nd a m s da d ic e es m a a .4 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.

Regulatory agencies are perceived as relatively independent. Areas in need of attention include police discrimination against foreigners and ethnic minorities. but inefficient. Accordingly. the court system. Chile leads the region in all dimensions of the rule of law. While Chile’s crime rates are relatively high in comparison to other middle-income countries. although court decisions are difficult to enforce (ranking 54th). as well as political interference in law enforcement agencies and the judiciary. and criminal recidivism. According to the general population poll. and inaccessible. where it ranks 51st among all indexed countries. including freedom of thought and religion and freedom of opinion and expression. although slow and not fully independent. people in Argentina have better access to legal counsel in civil disputes than do individuals in some developed countries. Fundamental rights are generally respected. 18 percent of respondents in Buenos Aires. ranking 4th among the 19 upper-middle income countries and 3rd among the 12 countries in Latin America. harsh conditions in correctional facilities. the civil justice system is perceived as slow. expensive. Nowadays. Latin American countries show the highest crime rates in the world and the criminal investigation and adjudication systems rank among the worst in the world (See figure 4). Another weakness is the high incidence of crime. only 4 percent of the perpetrators were punished. The country enjoys a fair system of checks and balances. for instance. Peru scores highly with regard to checks on executive power. although not as effective as in other middle-income countries. In spite of recent movements towards openness and political freedoms that have positioned many countries at the forefront in protecting basic rights and liberties. The government is accountable and courts are transparent and efficient. In this regard. as well as in protection of fundamental rights. and is positioned in the top 20 out of all 66 countries in six categories. public institutions in Latin America are not as efficient as those of countries in other regions. In Argentina and Mexico.Regional Trends Latin America and the Caribbean Latin America presents a picture of sharp contrasts. Police abuses and harsh conditions of correctional facilities are also problematic. such as Canada and the United States. partly because of the poor performance of government agencies in investigating allegations of misconduct. Furthermore. the region’s public institutions remain fragile. the perception of impunity remains widespread. the criminal justice system is effective and generally adheres to due process. although a perceived culture of impunity among government officials raises some cause for concern. is accessible. On the positive side. and police forces struggle to provide protection from crime or to punish perpetrators of abuses. Government agencies are transparent. Corruption and a lack of government accountability are still prevalent. The civil justice system is accessible (ranking 24th globally and second in Latin America). Argentina places low in the rankings in several dimensions. Cordoba. and third to last in the region) and complaints take a long time to get resolved (ranking 60th out of 66 countries). On the other hand. Regulatory agencies are perceived as ineffective (ranking 54th globally. Brazil follows Chile as the second-best performer in the region and positions itself as the country with the highest marks among the BRIC economies. only 15 percent of the people believe that institutions will act effectively in cases of corruption. Out of those incidents. Government accountability is weak. particularly for Re Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database st El Ja m em liv m e n lv ai al o a 25 . and Rosario reported having experienced a burglary in the past three years. Brazil’s lowest Figure 4: Conviction rates in Latin America 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% W or ld or na ca la ru ue il az Br Pe ez Ve n Gu at a bi ia ile ic ad ex Ch th ge lo Bo M Sa Co of Ar score is in the area of order and security.

WJP Rule of Law Index disadvantaged groups. On the other hand. and protection of labor rights 26 (ranking 27th). lack of information. and an independent judiciary. Property rights are weak. El Salvador and Guatemala fall into the middle of the global rankings in most categories. which is partly attributed to high crime rates and the presence of powerful criminal organizations. and 4th within the region). The judicial system is independent and free of undue influence. Police abuses and harsh conditions of correctional facilities are also significant problems. While government accountability is weak (ranking 53rd globally). Guatemala performs well on freedom of religion and effective protection of the right to petition the government when compared with its income-group peers. Another weakness is criminal justice—ranking 36th out of the 66 countries indexed— which can be explained by corruption and deficiencies in the criminal investigation and adjudication systems. and political interference in law enforcement agencies. while the property rights of companies are generally weak. Police abuses. On the other hand. The country also displays serious flaws in guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights. Colombia also scores well in other rule of law areas. strong protections for free speech and freedom of religion. and police abuses remain a significant problem. The country’s worst performances are in the areas of criminal justice (ranking 54th globally). and affordability of legal services. Colombia is a country of sharp contrasts. and it is one of the most accessible and affordable in the region. Mexico’s performance is mixed. but slow. Venezuela ranks relatively well in terms of religious freedom (ranking 15th). corruption is a serious problem in all branches of . The area of effective regulatory enforcement is one of El Salvador’s strengths (ranking 2nd among lowermiddle income countries and 24th globally). and crime is a very serious problem (ranking 63rd out of 66 countries). it is the worst performer in the world in accountability and effective checks on executive power. and poor conditions of correctional facilities are also significant problems. However. Civil courts are generally accessible. The country possesses a long constitutional tradition. freedom of opinion and expression. Guatemala also presents weaknesses in access to justice. the property rights of ordinary people appear to receive significantly better protection. reflecting a climate characterized by impunity. violations of human rights. with El Salvador generally outperforming Guatemala. Civil conflict remains a challenge (ranking 60th). and open government (ranking 10th in the region). On the other hand. language barriers for disadvantaged groups. People in Colombia enjoy better access to official information and higher degrees of participation in the administration of the laws than individuals in most other countries. and corruption. as well as on effectiveness of its administrative and regulatory agencies (ranking 35th). However. Mexico also performs relatively well on measures of openness (ranking 27th globally. Corruption appears to be widespread (ranking 54th). Colombia’s worst performance is in the area of order and security (ranking 64th out of 66 countries indexed). in particular. and corruption in the judicial system is a serious cause for concern. Concerns also remain about discrimination and restrictions in the freedom of opinion and expression (both ranking 11th out of 12 in the region). accessibility of the civil courts (ranking 21st). and the right to privacy. it is affected by delays and lack of effectiveness in the investigation and prosecution of crimes. the legislature. Bolivia obtains high marks in the areas of open government (ranking 5th among income-group peers). Bolivia faces challenges in terms of transparency and accountability of public institutions. corruption. scoring very high in some dimensions and very low in others. which could be attributed to. Labor rights are weak. and the criminal justice system is ineffective and subject to political influence (ranking 66th). government institutions are non-transparent. ranking second highest among middle-income countries and 18th in the global rankings in the area of open government. The judicial system is inefficient and affected by corruption. lengthy processes. among other factors. It stands out as one of the most open countries in Latin America. crime and violence are common (ranking 66th). including effective regulatory enforcement (ranking 4th in Latin America) and in government accountability. and the judiciary.

are also among the Dominican Republic’s weaknesses. However. especially for immigrants and ethnic minorities. it lags behind in guaranteeing equal treatment and non-discrimination. Australia. In this area. Australia ranks last among all high-income countries and ranks 40th globally. The judicial system is accessible. Japan places 2nd in the region and 4th globally for the effectiveness and transparency of its regulatory agencies. Crime and vigilante justice. it is also perceived to be slow relative to other high income countries. and Mexico’s police forces continue to struggle to guarantee the security of its citizens against crime and violence (ranking 58th). corruption among judges and law enforcement officials.Regional Trends government (ranking 53rd). lack of accountability for misconduct of government officers. but it is also slow and ineffective. The country’s main weaknesses lie in the areas of security and open government. although access to translators and affordable legal counsel remains limited. The country’s institutions and courts rank among the best in the world. although concerns remain regarding due process violations. Jamaica and the Dominican Republic occupy mid-range positions in most areas within the regional rankings. and free of corruption. The high costs imposed by courts and lawyers. The country ranks first in absence of corruption and is positioned in the top five in the world in seven of the eight categories of the Index. Australia scores lower than almost all high-income countries. wherein the country ranks 14th and 19th respectively among upper-middle income countries. Jamaica performs strongly in guaranteeing freedom of religion and freedom of privacy. Dominican Republic enjoys a relatively efficient civil court system. Government agencies and courts in the country are efficient. Malaysia. New Zealand stands out as the best performer in the region. independent. South Korea. Fundamental rights are strongly protected. transparent. Security is high (ranking 4th in the world) and the criminal justice system is effective (ranking 12th). however. they perform relatively well in comparison to countries from other regions of the world with similar income levels. where processes take longer. Indonesia. While the country ranks among the best in the world in protecting most fundamental rights. mainly because of high litigation costs. In this area. score high in most dimensions. Mexico (37%). Japan is one of the highest-ranking countries in the East Asia and Pacific region. The judicial system is independent and relatively free of corruption. corruption of the security forces. Another area of concern is discrimination. and serious violations of the due process of law and rights of the accused. 64 percent of people who went to court for a debt collection had the conflict resolved in less than a year. According to the general population poll. Wealthier countries such as Japan. accessibility of legal aid and government interference with the judiciary are areas that still require attention. Failures to prosecute government officials who commit violations and corrupt acts also remain a cause of concern in the country (ranking 59th). and the jurisdiction of Hong Kong SAR. and . In contrast. where it ranks 64th. free of corruption and effective. Singapore. However. Vigilante justice and organized crime are areas in need of attention. Australia ranks among the top ten globally in six of the eight categories measured by the Index. the Philippines. and violations of human rights. prevalent discrimination against vulnerable groups. New Zealand. This figure is much higher than the average figure for Argentina (24%). particularly for disadvantaged groups. place Japan 44th out of 66 countries in terms of accessibility and affordability of civil 27 East Asia and Pacific The East Asia and Pacific region displays a heterogeneous picture. The civil courts are efficient and independent. Japan’s lowest score is in the area of accessibility and affordability of civil procedures. and Thailand generally rank significantly lower than the wealthier countries in the region. The criminal justice system is deficient — ranking 63rd out of 66 countries indexed— mainly because of weaknesses in the criminal investigation and adjudication systems. although police abuses and harsh conditions in correctional facilities remain a source of concern. ranking 18th in this area. Vietnam. for instance. and even Spain (30%).

South Korea shows a strong and fairly even picture across most of the areas measured by the Index. China features in the top five in three categories. Notwithstanding the country’s outstanding performance in most categories. free of corruption. Indonesia faces challenges in the functioning of government agencies and courts. the country still lags behind others in the region in guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms to its people (ranking 21st). India. The country places 1st in guaranteeing order and security and 2nd for the effectiveness of its criminal justice system. Singapore features prominently among the indexed countries in providing security to its citizens (ranking 2nd). The criminal justice system is among the most effective in the world (ranking 5th). and accountability of its legal institutions. The civil court system is relatively accessible and speedy. although not entirely free of government interference. Indonesia is in the top half of the rankings among lower-middle income countries in most dimensions. China does well among lower-middle income countries in most categories. ranking second to last in the region and 47th globally. freedom of assembly (ranking 66th). Indicators of fundamental rights are weak. and relatively effective. The civil Table 3: Rule of law in Brazil. The public administration of the country is effective and corruption is minimal (ranking 4th). the country’s main strengths are in the areas of freedom of opinion (ranking 23rd globally). but judicial independence remains an area where more progress is needed. and open government (ranking 29th in the world and 3rd among income-group peers). yet they enjoy higher degrees of participation in the administration of the laws than individuals in other East Asia and Pacific region countries. Administrative agencies and courts are efficient and free of corruption. and the criminal justice system ranks 2nd among its income peers. ranking 25th and 35th respectively. out of all 66 countries. In spite of these features. there are substantial limitations on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Indonesians experience barriers to access official information. Nonetheless.WJP Rule of Law Index procedures. South Korea also lags behind other advanced countries in guaranteeing freedom of association and freedom of expression. and Russia  & > ' Powers  China India Z 26 37 24 55 &  24 31 51 40 & & Order and & ^ Z 51 25 65 45 25 64 36 47 & K ' 30 26 25 52 & Z  26 43 56 49 & Access to Civil Justice 24 44 48 40 &  Criminal Justice 44 25 35 23 Source: WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database 28 . with Singapore in 49th and 60th place. and freedom of speech (ranking 66th). While fundamental rights are strongly protected. including labor rights (ranking 61st out of 66). Hong Kong SAR. and places in the top 10 in two other categories. Security is high (ranking 25th). China has seen major improvements in the quality. Compared with other countries in the region. Administrative agencies are transparent. This low mark partly reflects political interference within the legislature and the judiciary. and is the secondbest performer among the BRIC economies. respectively. the country exhibits weaknesses in the area of government accountability —ranking second to last among high-income countries and 30th out of the 66 countries indexed. Enforcement of regulations is relatively ineffective (ranking 43rd globally and 8th among lower-middle income countries). as well as deficient checks on the government’s power. The courts are perceived to be independent of government control. effectiveness. Corruption in Indonesia is pervasive. China. but affected by powerful private interests and corruption.

access to civil justice. corruption among judges and law enforcement officers. although it still requires further efforts in many areas. Property rights are very weak (ranking 66th). and effectiveness of the criminal justice system (ranking 24th). Civil conflict and political violence remain significant problems (ranking 62nd). Malaysia presents a contrasting view. falling in the middle of the rankings on most categories. and corruption exists. as well as deficiencies in the electoral process. some areas require further attention. Compared with other upper-middle income countries. and 15th in the upper-middle income group). only 5 percent of the people who had a debt collection dispute went to court. Cambodia is ranked much lower than most other countries in the region on all dimensions. Of particular concern are shortcomings in the field of fundamental rights (ranking 40th). However. including effective limits on government powers (ranking 65th out of 66). and protection of fundamental rights . The country stands out for having reasonably effective checks and balances on the government’s power (ranking 3rd out of 16 income-group peers). and Cebu. Vietnam also receives low marks in the effective enforcement of civil justice and access to public information. and the lengthy duration of cases.an area where the country ranks 62nd. and impunity still exist. On the positive side. Malaysia’s government is relatively accountable. As with many other countries in the region. particularly within the police. The Philippines performs well relative to lowermiddle income countries on most dimensions. regulatory enforcement. attributable in part to the lack of affordable legal services. particularly in regard to violations against the right to life and security of the person (ranking 57th). which is highlighted by the low scores in key areas. Davao. Nonetheless. Cambodia displays lower crime rates than most countries in the low income group. Access to official information is limited (ranking 62nd). Compared with other lower middle-income countries.particularly regarding freedom of speech . and the lengthy duration of cases. where Malaysia ranks 59th out of 66 countries. deficient enforcement mechanisms. obtaining high marks on absence of crime (ranking 20th globally). Police abuses and harsh conditions in correctional facilities are also significant problems. a free media. and harsh conditions in correctional facilities. and an independent judiciary. attributable to deficient enforcement mechanisms. and police abuses remain a significant problem. including a vibrant civil society. Vietnam also presents a mixed picture. The Thai civil justice system is characterized by government influence and lengthy duration of cases. These factors may explain why few people use the court system to solve disputes. although corruption. Of particular concern is the situation posed by violations of fundamental rights. Out of those people. However. political interference. Corruption is a challenge. According to a general population poll of 1. abuses by the police still occur. and absence of corruption. police abuses. regulatory agencies and courts are not efficient. The efficiency and transparency of government agencies can still improve. civil conflict and political violence remain significant challenges (ranking 53rd). The overall legal and institutional environment remains quite weak. Vietnam’s order and security levels are high by regional and income group standards (ranking 22nd globally). where the country ranks last in the world. due process violations. 29 .Regional Trends justice system remains underdeveloped (ranking 41st). The Philippines also outperforms most lower-middle income countries in the area of effective regulatory enforcement. ranking 5th out of 16 countries. Despite ongoing reforms. ranking 1st among 19 income peers and on a par with countries such as France and Belgium. The country is safe. and efforts should also be made in the area of access to justice (ranking 47th globally. Other areas where particular attention should be focused include judicial independence. The civil court system also obtains poor scores (ranking 12th out of 13 in the region and 56th globally). Thailand performs relatively well. nobody had the conflict resolved in less than a year.000 people in Manila.

where the country ranks third to last. Corruption remains significant (ranking 30 Af ric Tu a C o r ke lo y m bi a Pe M ru e Ge xico rm an Un y i te I ta d l St y at es Br az Un i te L e b i l an d o Ki ng n do Ar ge m n n Fr a an ce Sp a No in rw ay Ru ss ia Ch Ka za i l e kh st a Ca n Ne na da t Cz her ec la n h Re d s pu b Ro l i c m an ia Italy Turkey Peru Mexico Colombia G So ut h Brazil S i 51st). Government accountability remains low (ranking 48th globally. However. India. particularly in the areas of court congestion. India enjoys strong protections of free speech (ranking 22nd out of 66). and political violence . and third to last among low-income countries. Order and security . Bangladesh is perceived as relatively safe . Bangladesh faces multiple challenges to strengthening the rule of law. and 3rd among low-income countries). and delays in processing cases. and Pakistan. enforcement. Human rights violations and police abuses are also a significant problem. The civil court system ranks poorly (48th out of 66) mainly because of deficiencies in access to justice. a functioning system of checks and balances. civil conflict. The civil justice system shares many of the same problems as other countries in the region. particularly with regard to the lengthy duration of cases and corruptive practices in lower level courts —where it ranks 62nd overall. the unsatisfactory performance of public administrative bodies has a negative impact on the rule of law. Z  / / t:W Z ' > / W s W  d Figure 5: Differences in police abuse High income Low income 20% 10% 0% Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database South Asia The WJP Rule of Law Index covers only three countries in this region in 2011: Bangladesh.is also a source of concern. and police discrimination and abuses are not unusual. unlike other countries in the region. an independent judiciary (ranking 18th). and a relatively open government (ranking 1st among 16 lower-middle income countries and 25th globally). however.WJP Rule of Law Index Box 6: Equal protection of the law h . and administrative agencies and courts are extremely inefficient and corrupt.including crime.

Other areas in need of attention are corruption among administrative officers (ranking 33rd). While some countries outperform high-income countries on a number of indicators. crime rates in Estonia are higher than in other nations with similar levels of development included in the Index (ranking 32nd out of 66 countries). Relatively strong areas include the courts’ independence from improper government influence. but further work is needed in terms of openness (ranking 33rd) and equal treatment of ethnic minorities. Czech Republic trails closely behind Poland in most dimensions. Crime rates are also high compared to other high-income countries. for example. accountability for misconduct of government officers is deficient (ranking 53rd). The country is safe from crime (ranking 6th). owing to its well-functioning and open institutions. are inefficient. Poland and the Czech Republic stand out amongst the former centrally planned economies with good performances across all categories. globally) mainly because of the lengthy resolution of cases (ranking 50th). and fundamental rights are strongly protected. Corruption is high and government accountability low —ranking 50th out of the 66 countries indexed— reflecting the poor performance of government agencies in investigating allegations of misconduct. although it still lags behind in comparison with more developed nations. However. Pakistan shows weaknesses in most areas when compared to its regional and income group peers. an area in which Bangladesh ranks first among low-income countries. and in criminal justice (ranking 3rd among income peers and 28th globally). Its public administrative bodies. a weak justice system. though discrimination against disadvantaged groups remains an issue. Despite recent progress. Romania shows a mixed performance across the eight dimensions. Estonia. The country has a relatively strong system of checks and balances (ranking 21st) and its administrative agencies are relatively effective (ranking 25th). Courts are independent. is still slow and subject to political influence and corruption. are the strongest performers in the region. Another relative strength is the protection of labor rights. Administrative agencies and courts are accountable. and the judicial system. effective. and a poor security situation. with high marks in the areas of security and respect for fundamental rights (ranking 2nd among 19 upper-middle income countries in both areas). Low levels of government accountability are compounded by the prevalence of corruption. Effective enforcement of regulations is very weak (ranking 59th). Bulgaria outperforms most 31 Eastern Europe and Central Asia Country performances across the Eastern Europe and Central Asia region are highly uneven. although mob justice is a persistent problem. On the positive side. and lack of effective sanctions for misconduct (ranking 34th). but very slow (ranking 58th). The country has a good record in observing fundamental rights. the country scores low in terms of the functioning of administrative bodies and efficiency of the judiciary. particularly related to terrorism and crime.Regional Trends from crime (ranking 13th globally). Poland’s lowest score comes in the area of access to civil justice (ranking 30th . and discrimination against minorities is problematic. Judicial delays are also another area in need of attention (ranking 27th globally). Poland. while generally accessible. all of whom recently joined the European Union. and corruption persists. and 22nd in effectiveness of regulatory enforcement. Harsh treatment of prisoners and detainees is an area of concern. The criminal justice system displays serious flaws. Croatia and Romania fall in the middle of the rankings in most categories. Bulgaria places in the bottom half of the uppermiddle income countries. Poland’s public institutions rank 21st in absence of corruption. Croatia’s institutions still lag behind those of other high-income countries. partly because of the weak enforcement of laws and regulations. and free of corruption. Estonia leads the region in all but one category. and the Czech Republic. other nations in the region find themselves ranking at the bottom of the sample. and respect for due process in administrative proceedings. However. and difficulties enforcing court decisions (ranking 53rd).

The country shows institutional strengths. such as freedom of opinion. with political interference. In addition. mainly because of deficiencies in the functioning of auditing mechanisms. Property rights are weak. a poor record on freedom of expression. the country still faces serious challenges in terms of accountability and constraints on the executive branch. Despite recent reforms. The country ranks second to last in the region in protection of fundamental rights. Despite the implementation of some reform measures. Jordan. and assembly. Lebanon. The right to petition the government and citizen participation are also significant strengths (ranking 2nd in the region and 26th globally). and corruption among government officials is pervasive. and the criminal justice system is relatively effective (23rd). Middle East and North Africa This report covers five countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region: Iran. religion. arbitrary interference of privacy. remains a source of concern. impunity. as well as the fairness of elections. placing the country last among upper-middle income nations. are corrupt and inefficient. where it ranks 59th. impunity. Nonetheless. Regulatory agencies are ineffective and opaque (ranking 64th). Turkey receives low marks in the areas of government accountability (ranking 52nd out of 66 countries) and fundamental rights (ranking 58th). the country obtains relatively high marks in protecting basic liberties. and it is relatively safe from violent crime (ranking 38th). where it ranks 27th. and political interference. Police abuses and harsh conditions in correctional facilities are also significant problems. Morocco. the performance of courts is still poor (ranking 4th out of the eight low-income countries). On the positive side. The political mechanisms to hold the executive accountable are weak. and arbitrary interference with privacy. The country is safe from crime and violence (ranking 27th). Kyrgyzstan ranks 57th in establishing effective limits on government power and 61st in corruption. Violations against some fundamental rights. as confirmed by the political turmoil at the beginning of 2011 in other MENA region countries. Russia shows serious deficiencies in checks and balances among the different branches of government (ranking 55th). Kazakhstan’s regulatory agencies are relatively effective (ranking 4th in the region and 31st globally) and civil courts are fairly accessible and 32 relatively efficient. and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Regulations are not always enforced (ranking 49th). and the judiciary is plagued by corruption and political interference. and in respecting the freedoms of speech. Albania is safe from crime. the countries in this region display average scores.WJP Rule of Law Index upper-middle income countries in protecting the security of its citizens from crime. In most areas. freedom of association. but its institutions have serious flaws that challenge advancements in other areas. and corruption leading to manipulation in the application of the law. and civil courts. and the courts are inefficient and corrupt. political interference within the legislature and the judiciary. although accessible. Turkey ranks in the middle in comparison to the other Eastern Europe and Central Asia nations. In spite of these strengths. with poor scores in the areas of due process. Ukraine ranks third to last in government accountability. such as freedom of religion. both countries still face many challenges to strengthening the rule of law. Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan rank in the bottom half of middle-income countries on most categories. Property rights are weak. However. . leading to an institutional environment characterized by corruption. The situation in regard to the independence of the legislative and the judiciary. Rules and regulations are difficult to enforce. these countries have serious weaknesses in the areas of accountability. and discrimination. and the civil justice system. Crime rates in Russia are not as high as those in other middleincome countries (ranking 8th out of 19). although still subject to undue influence. following the political turmoil. particularly within the public administration bodies. and arbitrary interference with privacy are areas of concern. the repressiveness of the state stands out as an important source of concern. checks and balances on the executive branch.

Regional Trends Box 7.50 . t   / ^ K / d t:W Z > / d Z / outcomes associated with activities that are regulated Figure 6: Regulatory enforcement around the world  Factor 6: Effective Regulatory Enforcement > 0. such as environmental regulations.0.59 < 0.50 Not indexed Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database 33 . Regulatory compliance around the world W in all jurisdictions.59 0.

Despite recent reform efforts. six percent of respondents reported a murder in their household in the past five years.ranking 45th overall. some weaknesses remain in the areas of government accountability. In spite of these achievements. Sub-Saharan Africa The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 report covers eight countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. delays. it lags behind in all other categories. The country’s efficient public institutions. Lebanon stands out in the region due to its efforts to guarantee civil rights and freedoms amongst its people (ranking 1st in the region and 27th globally). with South Africa and Ghana as the regional leaders. Judicial independence and fundamental rights are strong. In spite of these strengths. and Durban. Jordan is positioned in second place within the countries included in the MENA region. although fairly efficient. but public institutions are inefficient and corrupt. and regulatory enforcement. although it remains inaccessible for many people. Iran’s law enforcement is relatively strong. The region exhibits a range of performance levels. While Morocco performs well in the area of order and security. along with a high level of security. and . Courts. especially discrimination. freedom of opinion. Cape Town. These rates are among the highest in the world.and the criminal justice system displays flaws with regard to the due process of law. and freedom of belief and religion. and government officers are held accountable for misconduct. and fundamental rights are curtailed (ranking 51st). Other areas of concern in South Africa are the high rate of vigilante justice. absence of corruption. and 7th out of 16 lower-middle income group countries .000 people in Johannesburg. and freedom of opinion and expression. and labor rights (ranking 63rd). and the rest of the countries positioned at the bottom of the global ranking. Another area of serious concern is the situation of fundamental rights. The lack of security and the prevalence of crime. remain its main areas of strength. the formal system of checks and balances remains weak. including labor rights. Similarly. and effective regulatory enforcement. The country ranks well in most dimensions. It also obtains relatively high marks in the areas of civil and criminal justice. and corruption is prevalent. The United Arab Emirates has the highest scores of those countries in the region that were included in the sample in most dimensions. particularly when compared with countries at similar stages of economic development. Of particular concern is the case of the administration 34 of justice. South Africa has the best rule of law outcomes in Sub-Saharan Africa. mainly because of corruption and political interference within the civil courts. and absence of guarantees of due process of law in criminal cases. where the country ranks 49th out of 66. corruption. the civil court system is very efficient and relatively independent. but generally underperforms its regional peers. Public institutions in the country are relatively well developed and corruption-free (ranking 13th out of 66 countries). and respect for fundamental rights. and access to justice. continue to be extremely worrisome (ranking 61st overall). freedom of assembly. Other areas of concern are open government. however. The country is relatively safe from crime. Government accountability is weak (ranking 58th globally and last within the region). According to the general population poll of 1. and freedom of opinion and expression.WJP Rule of Law Index openness. and 25 percent reported having experienced a burglary in the past three years. Property rights are also well protected. effective regulatory enforcement. where the country ranks last in the world. freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy. Morocco obtains medium marks on most dimensions. the relatively ineffective criminal justice system. Jordan’s record in the area of fundamental rights remains one of the worst in the world. particularly with regard to discrimination (ranking 55th out of 66 countries). freedom of religion. are subject to corruption and political interference. discrimination against marginalized groups. The assessment of the civil justice system remains average . but often used as an instrument to perpetrate abuses. including government accountability.

4 Right to pe on the government and public par cipa on 6 5. Another area where efforts are required is open government. Effective checks 35 . although police abuses and harsh treatment of prisoners remain a source of concern. where the country ranks 62nd. and is the best performer among low-income countries. vigilante justice. but still inaccessible to most people. are areas that require attention.6 Official informa on is available on request 5.Regional Trends Box 8: Open government around the world K / and collaboration between the government and its Z / K / d t:W Z > / Index results suggest that some governments are more D d K ' Figure 7: Open government around the world Z 5. The civil justice system is relatively independent. Within its income group.2 The laws are publicized and widely accessible 5.1 The laws are comprehensible to the public 3 2 1 0 Western Europe & North America Source: The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 database East Asia & Pacific La n America & Caribbean Eastern Europe & Central Asia Middle East & North Africa South Asia SubSaharan Africa the poor condition of correctional facilities. Although government accountability is weak. and deficiencies in the criminal investigation and adjudication systems. Senegal is in the middle of the rankings in most dimensions.3 The laws are stable 4 5. The country has a moderate record in protecting fundamental rights (ranking 38th overall and 3rd in Sub-Saharan Africa). Ghana follows South Africa as the second-best performer in the region. The country faces multiple challenges in terms of accountability the and functioning of public institutions. Public administration bodies are relatively effective and corruption levels are lower than in most other countries in the region. Cameroon lags behind its regional and income peers in most categories. with particular concerns regarding the proper functioning of checks and balances on the executive branch (ranking 51st overall and 11th out of 16 lower-middle income countries). Security from crime (ranking 43rd).5 Official dra s of laws are available to the public 5 5. The country enjoys a good system of checks and balances (ranking 19th overall and first within the region).

and fundamental rights are not always respected in practice. Kenya occupies the 61st place in government accountability. is in the middle of the rankings when it comes to incorporating principles of the rule of law.are hampered by a lack of resources and pervasive corruption. ranking 65th globally and last in the region. which is partly attributable to the inability of the legislature and the judiciary to act as a check on the executive branch. The country has a very poor record in the area of fundamental rights. are under-resourced and inaccessible to most people. Of greatest concern are restrictions limiting fundamental freedoms. . Protection of fundamental rights is weak (ranking 61st out of 66 countries). the lack of sanctions to punish misconduct raises concerns.positioned at the bottom of the rankings . and harsh conditions in correctional facilities. Crime and vigilante justice remain serious problems (ranking 50th). as well as violations of fundamental labor rights. high incidence of mob and vigilante justice. The civil court system is slow and subject to political influence. police abuses. In Uganda government accountability is low (ranking 54th globally and 4th among low-income countries). Civil conflict and political violence remain significant challenges (ranking 58th). which is in part explained by the shortcomings within the criminal justice system (ranking 53rd and third to last in the region). Courts. and administrative agencies are inefficient and corrupt. The country is affected by civil conflict and political violence (ranking 58th). Corruption remains widespread and regulatory enforcement is ineffective (ranking second to last in the region). but comparable to other countries in the region. Checks and balances on the executive branch function relatively better than in other Sub-Saharan African countries. in comparison with other low-income nations. and expression.WJP Rule of Law Index and balances are poor (ranking 62nd overall and second to last within the region). the quality of public administrative bodies and the judiciary . such as the freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech. While Cameroon’s most significant strength in comparison to other countries in the region is the low incidence of crime. are sources of concern. and corruption remains widespread (ranking 64th). although corruption is prevalent. The country ranks relatively well in the area of government accountability (ranking 2nd among low-income countries). Ethiopia. Accountability is very weak by regional standards (ranking 63rd globally and second to last among lowincome nations) and corruption remains. remain areas in need of attention. however. Liberia’s scores reflect the recent advances towards a functioning system of checks and balances on the executive branch. Liberia outperforms its regional peers in protecting some basic liberties. However. and civil conflict and political violence remain significant challenges. Property rights are weak (ranking 64th). Open government and lack of respect of fundamental rights are also other areas of concern. Restrictions to the freedoms of assembly. The performance of regulatory agencies and courts is poor. as well as illegal detentions and due process violations. opinion. Nigeria is among the bottom half of the lowermiddle countries in most dimensions. although relatively 36 independent.

The country scores are shown in blue. We anticipate that all the above sub-factors will be included in the WJP Rule of Law Index 2012 report.3 People do not resort to violence to redress grievances 0.00). As a point of reference. All variables used to score each of the eight independent factors are coded and rescaled to range between 0 and 1.6 Criminal system is free of improper government 0.00).6 Official informa on requested is available The table in Section 1 displays the featured country’s aggregate scores by factor and the country’s rankings within its regional and income level groups.3 Government powers limited by judiciary 4.5 Government officials sanc oned for misconduct 4.7. The second column displays the country’s aggregate score for each of the eight factors.46 0.5 Freedom of belief and religion 4. The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 report does not include scores for the following sub-factors: sub-factor 1. the graphs also show the score achieved for each sub-factor by the top performer amongst all 66 countries indexed (in violet).0 5.2 Civil conflict is effec vely limited 3.2 People can access legal counsel 7.2 Absence of corrup on in the judicial branch 4.5 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights 3.0 1. 39 .9 ADRs are accessible.2 Government powers limited by legislature 1.00) and the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score for each sub-factor (1.3 People can access and 1. the fifth column shows the country’s ranking among countries with comparable per capita income levels. and finally.4 Criminal system is free of 0.2 Laws are publicized Access to Justice 8. where 1 signifies the highest score and 0 signifies the lowest score. intervals are defined for the continuous variables that make up sub-factor 3. 1. Individual 1 variables tapping the same concept are averaged and then aggregated into factors and 2 sub-factors using arithmetic averages.Country Profiles Country Profiles This section presents profiles for the 65 countries and one additional jurisdiction included in the 2011 administration of the Index.5 Criminal system is free 6.3 Due process of law is free of 7.2 “Civil conflict is effectively limited” have been revised from the June 2011 edition of the report.0 Section 1— Scores for the Rule of Law Factors 1 2.6 Arbitrary interference of privacy 0.3 Absence of corrup on by the police and military 1. 4.77 0.4 Freedom of opinion and expression 1.1 Laws are clear 6. Durres.4 Due process in administra ve proceedings 0.38 0.00).2 Government regula ons without improper influence 6. and draws comparisons between the scores of the featured country and the scores of other indexed countries that share regional and income level similarities. These scores are the basis for the final rankings. WJP Rule of Law Index™ Income Upper Middle WJP Rule of Law Index Factors Section 2 displays four graphs that show the country’s disaggregated scores for each of the subfactors that compose the WJP Rule of Law Index. Accountable Government 1.5 Score 0.6 Freedom of opinion and expression Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement 5. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possible score for each sub-factor (0. The center of each circle corresponds to the lowest possible score for each sub-factor (0. Due process of law 8.1 “Government powers are defined in the fundamental law”.5 5.47 0.7 Transi on of power subject to the law 1. In the current edition.6 Civil of improper government not subject to unreasonable delays 7.4 “Government officials in the legislature do not use public office for private gain”. The third column displays the country’s global ranking for each factor. Regional Ranking 6/12 10/12 9/12 6/12 Income Group Ranking 13/19 19/19 4/19 7/19 9/12 15/19 10/12 14/19 10/12 15/19 10/12 16/19 Eastern Europe & Central Asia 1. The graphs also show the average scores of all countries indexed within the region (in green) and all countries indexed with Tirana. Each sub-factor is represented by a radius running from the center of the circle to the periphery. The table is organized as follows: the first column lists the first eight factors that make up the Index.1 Government regula ons effec vely enforced 0.7 Freedom of assembly and associa on 0.39 Global Ranking 49/66 55/66 32/66 29/66 50/66 51/66 47/66 57/66 Region Factor 1: Limited Government Powers Absence of Corrup on Order and Security Fundamental Rights Eastern Europe & Central Asia Factor 2: Factor 3: Factor 4: Factor 5: Popula on 3m (2010) 48% Urban 24% in three largest ci es Open Government Factor 6: Factor 7: Regulatory Enforcement Access to Civil Jus ce Factor 8: Effec ve Criminal Jus ce 2.0 3.0 5. a sub-factor is represented by a radius from the center of the circle to the periphery.0 5.4 Right to pe on and public par cipa on 8.5 The government does not expropriate without adequate compensa on 1. Each graph shows a circle that corresponds to one concept measured by the Index. Section 2— Disaggregated Scores 2 How to Read the Country Profiles Each country profile presents the featured country’s scores for each of the WJP Rule of Law Index’s factors and sub-factors.1 “People are aware of available remedies”.2 Right to life and security of the person 4. The average scores of the rescaled variables are later normalized using the Albania Min-Max method.65 0. Higher scores signify a higher adherence to the rule of law. Additional details of the construction of this sub-factor can be found in Botero and Ponce (2011).4 Independent audi ng and review 4.5 7.8 Fundamental labor rights 0. the outer edge of the circle marks the highest possible score (1.51 0.5 2.1 Absence of corrup on in the execu ve branch 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index™ sub-factors Key Albania Top Score Upper Middle Income In each graph.0 free of 6.3 Administra ve proceedings without unreasonable delay 6. impar- Results for sub-factor 3.1 Absence of crime 2. sub-factor 2. The fourth column shows the country’s ranking within its region.2.5 0. and sub-factor 7. Elbasan comparable per capita income levels (in red).42 0.5 0.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimina on 4.5 Official dra s of laws are available 5.3 Laws are stable 8.

0  government 1.5 > stable  0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5 0.Albania 1.0  & 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D   & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 49/66 55/66 31/66 28/66 50/66 51/66 46/66 57/66 Tirana.5 0. Durres.5  0. Elbasan Z Z 6/12 10/12 9/12 6/12 9/12 11/12 10/12 10/12 / ' Z 13/19 19/19 4/19 6/19 15/19 15/19 14/19 16/19 Z  W 3m (2010) h 24% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.5 association / auditing and review 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Albania d ^ h D /    Accountable Government ' 1.0 >   in administrative 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   40 .5 0.5 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.

0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.Argentina 1.0 d ^ h D / >  Accountable Government ' & Security and Fundamental Rights 1.0  government 1.5  0.5 0.5 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score  ' Z 47/66 46/66 56/66 33/66 44/66 54/66 31/66 56/66 Z Z  / Z ' Z 12/19 13/19 15/19 9/19 13/19 17/19 8/19 15/19 Z >  W 41m (2010) h 39% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 9/12 8/12 9/12 5/12 9/12 10/12 4/12 9/12 2.0 >   in administrative 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   41 .0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5 0.5 0.5 > stable  0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < ' 1.0  & 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.

Australia 1. /  W Accountable Government ' 1.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0  & 0.5  0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   42 . WJP Rule of Law Index Income .0 >   in administrative 0.5 > stable  0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 0.0  government 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Australia d ^ .0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ^ ' Z 4/66 9/66 10/66 7/66 8/66 7/66 13/66 15/66 D Z Z 2/13 5/13 4/13 2/13 4/13 3/13 4/13 5/13 /  ' Z 4/23 9/23 10/23 7/23 8/23 7/23 13/23 15/23 Z  W W 22m (2010) h 46% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.5 0.

Austria
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income
,
t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 8/66 8/66 8/66 5/66 9/66 9/66 8/66 8/66 Z Z

t
/

'
' Z 8/23 8/23 8/23 5/23 9/23 9/23 8/23 8/23

>

Z
t E 

W
8m (2010)
h 36% in three largest cities

K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   :

6/12 4/12 4/12 4/12 5/12 6/12 5/12 4/12

2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors
/ d

<

Austria

d

^

,

/

t 

E

Accountable Government
'
1.0

Security and Fundamental Rights
' &

1.0 

&
0.5

0.5 0.5

association / auditing and review
0.0

W do not resort to violence to redress grievances

in the judicial branch

0.0 

treatment discrimination

' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z

Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
> d

Access to Justice
W  W 1.0  government

1.0

>  

in administrative

0.5 0.5

> stable 

0.5 0.5 

0.0
Administrative without unreasonable Z  

0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z 

' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available  

43

Bangladesh
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income
>
t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' 

Z 48/66 58/66 42/66 48/66 54/66 58/66 62/66 40/66 

Z Z 2/3 2/3 1/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 / Z

<
' 3/8 4/8 3/8 3/8 3/8 4/8 6/8 2/8

Z
South Asia

W
164m (2010)
h 13% in three largest cities

K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   :

2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors
/ d

<

Bangladesh

d

^

>

/

South Asia

Accountable Government
'
1.0

Security and Fundamental Rights
' &

1.0 

&
0.5

0.5 0.5

association / auditing and review
0.0

W do not resort to violence to redress grievances

in the judicial branch

0.0 

treatment discrimination

' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z

Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
> d

Access to Justice
W  W 1.0  government

1.0

>  

in administrative

0.5 0.5

> stable 

0.5 0.5 

0.0
Administrative without unreasonable Z  

0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z 

' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available  

44

Belgium
1. WJP Rule of Law Index
Income
,
t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' 

Z 12/66 15/66 15/66 11/66 15/66 17/66 9/66 18/66 Z Z 8/12 8/12 8/12 6/12 9/12 10/12 6/12 9/12 / ' Z 12/23 15/23 14/23 11/23 15/23 17/23 9/23 18/23

'

Z
t E 

W
11m (2010)
h 28% in three largest cities

K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   :

2. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors
/ d

<

Belgium

d

^

,

/

t 

E

Accountable Government
'
1.0

Security and Fundamental Rights
' &

1.0 

&
0.5

0.5 0.5

association / auditing and review
0.0

W do not resort to violence to redress grievances

in the judicial branch

0.0 

treatment discrimination

' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z

Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement
> d

Access to Justice
W  W 1.0  government

1.0

>  

in administrative

0.5 0.5

> stable 

0.5 0.5 

0.0
Administrative without unreasonable Z  

0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z 

' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available  

45

5 > stable  0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 >   government  in administrative 0.5 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Bolivia d ^ > D / >  Accountable Government ' 1.5 0.5 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.Bolivia 1.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0  & 0.5  0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   46 .0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score > W ' Z ^  Z Z 11/12 12/12 3/12 11/12 6/12 11/12 10/12 10/12  / ' Z 13/16 14/16 12/16 9/16 5/16 12/16 12/16 16/16 Z >  W 10m (2010) h 41% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 56/66 60/66 49/66 49/66 34/66 55/66 54/66 62/66 2.5 0.

5 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   47 .5 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ^ W Z : .0  government 1.5 0.0  & 0.  ' Z 26/66 24/66 51/66 25/66 30/66 26/66 24/66 44/66 Z Z 3/12 2/12 5/12 3/12 5/12 3/12 2/12 5/12 / Z ' 4/19 2/19 12/19 4/19 6/19 3/19 3/19 11/19 Z >  W 193m (2010) h 20% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 association / auditing and review 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d <  d ^ h D / >  Accountable Government ' 1.5 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0 >   in administrative 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5 > stable  0.5  0.Brazil 1.

0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  government 1.0  & 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   48 .0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5  0.5 0.5 > stable  0.5 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Bulgaria d ^ h D /    Accountable Government ' 1.0 >   in administrative 0.Bulgaria 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D   & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 50/66 50/66 32/66 37/66 37/66 45/66 38/66 64/66 ^ Z Z 7/12 9/12 10/12 7/12 6/12 8/12 8/12 12/12 W / s ' Z 14/19 16/19 5/19 11/19 8/19 13/19 11/19 18/19 Z  W 8m (2010) h 25% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 0.

0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   49 .5 association / auditing and review 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0  & 0.Cambodia 1.5 0.0  government 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' W W <   / Z 8/8 8/8 2/8 7/8 6/8 7/8 7/8 6/8 ' Z 65/66 66/66 41/66 62/66 61/66 65/66 64/66 55/66 Z  W W 14m (2010) h 13% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : Z Z 13/13 13/13 13/13 12/13 13/13 13/13 13/13 13/13 2.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 > stable  0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5  0.0 >   in administrative 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Cambodia d ^ > /  W Accountable Government ' 1.

0  & 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Douala.Cameroon 1.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5  0.5 0. Bamenda Z 62/66 64/66 46/66 57/66 63/66 57/66 61/66 58/66 Z Z 8/9 9/9 2/9 7/9 7/9 6/9 8/9 8/9 / ' Z 15/16 15/16 10/16 13/16 15/16 14/16 14/16 13/16 Z Sub-Saharan W 20m (2010) h 20% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1. Yaoundé.0  government 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 0.5 0.0 >   in administrative 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5 > stable  0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Cameroon d ^ > D / ^ ^ Accountable Government ' 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   50 .5 0.

/ t  E Accountable Government ' 1.5  0.Canada 1.5 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Canada d ^ .0 >   in administrative 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 0.0  & 0.0  government 1. Vancouver ' Z 7/66 11/66 7/66 14/66 6/66 13/66 16/66 10/66 Z Z 5/12 5/12 3/12 9/12 4/12 7/12 9/12 6/12 / Z 7/23 11/23 7/23 14/23 6/23 13/23 16/23 10/23 ' Z t E  W 34m (2010) h 34% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   51 . WJP Rule of Law Index Income .5 0.5 > stable  0.5 association / auditing and review 0. Montreal. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score Toronto.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.

0  government 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Chile d ^ h D / >  Accountable Government ' 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ^ ' Z 17/66 18/66 44/66 18/66 16/66 20/66 18/66 27/66 s Z Z 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12  / Z 1/19 1/19 9/19 1/19 1/19 1/19 1/19 2/19 ' Z >  W 17m (2010) h 43% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0  & 0.5 > stable  0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   52 .Chile 1.5  0.0 >   in administrative 0.5 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 0.5 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.

341m (2010) h 3% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D W & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score  ' Z 37/66 31/66 25/66 64/66 26/66 43/66 44/66 25/66 ^ Z Z 11/13 9/13 9/13 13/13 7/13 12/13 8/13 8/13 ' / Z 7/16 3/16 2/16 16/16 2/16 8/16 6/16 2/16 ' Z  W 1.5 0.5 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 0.5 0.China 1.0  government 1.5  0.5 association / auditing and review 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < China d ^ > D /  W Accountable Government ' 1.0 >   in administrative 0.5 > stable  0.0  & 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   53 .0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.

0 >   in administrative 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 0. Cali Z Z 4/12 5/12 12/12 8/12 2/12 4/12 3/12 6/12 / Z 5/19 7/19 19/19 12/19 2/19 4/19 7/19 14/19 ' Z >  W 46m (2010) h 31% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.5 0.5 > stable  0.Colombia 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   54 .0  & 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 0. Medellin.5  0.0  government 1.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 27/66 34/66 64/66 42/66 18/66 27/66 29/66 49/66 Bogota.5 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Colombia d ^ h D / >  Accountable Government ' 1.

Croatia 1.0  & 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 33/66 35/66 29/66 26/66 33/66 37/66 32/66 37/66  Z Z 4/12 5/12 7/12 5/12 4/12 6/12 6/12 6/12 ^ / Z ' Z 23/23 23/23 22/23 21/23 22/23 23/23 22/23 23/23 Z    W 4m (2010) h 23% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5 0.5  0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d <  d ^ .5 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  government 1.5 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   55 .5 0.0 >   in administrative 0.5 > stable  0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income . /    Accountable Government ' 1.

/    Accountable Government ' 1. Ostrava Z Z 3/12 3/12 4/12 2/12 3/12 3/12 2/12 1/12 / ' Z 19/23 22/23 20/23 9/23 21/23 21/23 19/23 11/23 Z    W 11m (2010) h 17% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.5 > stable  0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 0.5 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.5  0.0 >   in administrative 0.0  government 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income .0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d <  Z d ^ . Brno.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5 0.Czech Republic 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   56 . t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 21/66 23/66 23/66 9/66 28/66 25/66 20/66 11/66 Prague.0  & 0.

Dominican Republic 1.5 0.5 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   57 .5 association / auditing and review 0.5  0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5 > stable  0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' ^  ^ de los Caballeros. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d <  Z d ^ h D / >  Accountable Government ' 1. San Cristobal ' Z 46/66 49/66 57/66 35/66 39/66 52/66 39/66 43/66 Z Z 8/12 9/12 10/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 7/12 4/12 / ' Z 11/19 15/19 16/19 10/19 9/19 16/19 12/19 10/19 Z >  W 10m (2010) h 31% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 >   in administrative 0.0  government 1.0  & 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.

0  government 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < El Salvador d ^ > D / >  Accountable Government ' 1.0 >   in administrative 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   58 .0  & 0.El Salvador 1.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 0.5 > stable  0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ^ ^ ^ ^ Ana ' Z 32/66 32/66 48/66 34/66 47/66 24/66 37/66 54/66 Z Z 5/12 4/12 2/12 6/12 10/12 2/12 6/12 8/12 / Z ' 4/16 4/16 11/16 3/16 10/16 2/16 3/16 12/16 Z >  W 6m (2010) h 34% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.5  0.

Tartu.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.Estonia 1.5 0.5  0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   59 . Narva Z Z 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 2/12 / ' Z 10/23 10/23 16/23 8/23 13/23 10/23 6/23 14/23 Z    W 1m (2010) h 43% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 >   in administrative 0. /    Accountable Government ' 1. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 10/66 10/66 17/66 8/66 13/66 10/66 6/66 14/66 Tallinn.5 0.0  & 0.0  government 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Estonia d ^ .5 association / auditing and review 0.5 > stable  0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income .0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.

0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.Ethiopia 1.0  & 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   60 .0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0. Dire Dawa. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d <  d ^ > / ^ ^ Accountable Government ' 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z Addis Ababa.0 >   in administrative 0.0  government 1.5 0.5  0.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 > stable  0. D Z Z 9/9 4/9 4/9 9/9 5/9 7/9 4/9 6/9 / Z 7/8 2/8 5/8 8/8 5/8 5/8 2/8 5/8 ' Z Sub-Saharan W 85m (2010) h 5% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 63/66 44/66 54/66 65/66 60/66 62/66 42/66 50/66 2.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.

5 0. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 15/66 14/66 16/66 15/66 17/66 14/66 14/66 22/66 W Z Z D / ' Z 15/23 14/23 15/23 15/23 16/23 14/23 14/23 22/23 > Z t E  W 63m (2010) h 20% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 9/12 7/12 9/12 10/12 10/12 8/12 8/12 12/12 2.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0 >   in administrative 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  government 1.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.France 1. / t  E Accountable Government ' 1.5 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < & d ^ .5 > stable  0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income .0  & 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5  0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   61 .

5 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   62 .5 > stable  0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score '  Z 6/66 12/66 9/66 6/66 11/66 8/66 2/66 9/66 .0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 association / auditing and review 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < ' d ^ .0  government 1.5  0. Z Z 4/12 6/12 5/12 5/12 7/12 5/12 2/12 5/12 / Z D ' 6/23 12/23 9/23 6/23 11/23 8/23 2/23 9/23 Z t E  W 82m (2010) h 8% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 >   in administrative 0.0  & 0.Germany 1.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income . / t  E Accountable Government ' 1.5 0.

Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < ' d ^ > / ^ ^ Accountable Government ' 1.5 0.5 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.Ghana 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   63 . WJP Rule of Law Index Income > t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 19/66 41/66 47/66 22/66 31/66 44/66 26/66 31/66 Z Z 1/9 3/9 3/9 1/9 2/9 3/9 2/9 2/9 < / Z d ' 1/8 1/8 4/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 1/8 Z Sub-Saharan W 24m (2010) h 18% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5 > stable  0.0 >   in administrative 0.0  government 1.5  0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0  & 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.

0  & 0.5 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  government 1.5  0.Guatemala 1.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < ' d ^ > D / >  Accountable Government ' 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   64 .0 >   in administrative 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' '  D s Nueva ' Z 12/16 8/16 13/16 7/16 6/16 9/16 10/16 9/16 Z 53/66 42/66 52/66 43/66 38/66 46/66 51/66 51/66 Z >  W 14m (2010) h 12% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : Z Z 10/12 6/12 6/12 9/12 7/12 8/12 9/12 7/12 / 2.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 > stable  0.

5 association / auditing and review 0.5 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0  government 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < . /  W Accountable Government ' 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income .0  & 0. / < ' Z 14/23 6/23 1/23 20/23 5/23 18/23 12/23 2/23 Z  W W 7m (2010) h 100% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.5 0. < ^ Z  d ^ . China 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   65 .5 > stable  0.Hong Kong SAR. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 14/66 6/66 1/66 21/66 5/66 18/66 12/66 2/66 Z Z 4/13 4/13 1/13 5/13 2/13 6/13 3/13 1/13 .0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5  0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 >   in administrative 0.

0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 24/66 51/66 65/66 36/66 25/66 56/66 48/66 35/66 D Z Z 1/3 1/3 2/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3  / Z < ' 2/16 10/16 15/16 4/16 1/16 13/16 8/16 6/16 Z South Asia W 1.India 1.216m (2010) h 4% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0  & 0.5 > stable  0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   66 .0 1.5  0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < India d ^ > D / South Asia Accountable Government ' Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0  government 1.0 0.5 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 >   in administrative 0.

WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D W & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' : Z 22/66 47/66 37/66 29/66 29/66 32/66 41/66 26/66 ^ Z Z 6/13 12/13 10/13 6/13 8/13 7/13 7/13 9/13 /  ' Z 1/16 9/16 7/16 1/16 3/16 3/16 4/16 3/16 Z  W 234m (2010) h 7% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0  & 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.Indonesia 1.5 0.5 0.5 > stable  0.0  >  government  in administrative 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5  0.0 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Indonesia d ^ > D /  W Accountable Government ' 1.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   67 .

0  government 1.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.Iran 1.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0  & 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   68 .0 >   in administrative 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Iran d ^ h D / D  E Accountable Government ' 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 0.5 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D  & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z d Z Z D / 5/5 3/5 5/5 5/5 3/5 3/5 3/5 3/5 / ' Z 17/19 8/19 7/19 19/19 10/19 6/19 6/19 9/19 Z D E W 75m (2010) h 17% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 58/66 38/66 40/66 66/66 41/66 29/66 28/66 39/66 2.5  0.5 > stable  0.

Italy 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   69 . / t  E Accountable Government ' 1.0 >   in administrative 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 association / auditing and review 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < / d ^ .0  government 1.5 > stable  0.0  & 0.5 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5 0.5 0. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 29/66 22/66 33/66 20/66 35/66 30/66 33/66 16/66 Z Z Z 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 8/12 D / E ' Z 21/23 21/23 23/23 19/23 23/23 22/23 23/23 16/23 Z t E  W 60m (2010) h 14% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2. WJP Rule of Law Index Income .0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5  0.5 0.

5 association / auditing and review 0.5 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Jamaica d ^ h D / >  Accountable Government ' 1.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   70 .5  0.0 >   in administrative 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' < W ^ Town Z 38/66 25/66 55/66 31/66 58/66 41/66 36/66 34/66 Z Z 6/12 3/12 8/12 4/12 12/12 7/12 5/12 2/12 / Z ' 7/19 3/19 14/19 8/19 19/19 12/19 10/19 6/19 Z >  W 3m (2010) h 32% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0  & 0.5 0.5 0.5 > stable  0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0  government 1.Jamaica 1.

t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z d Z Z z / 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/13 3/13 2/13 2/13 4/13 K ' Z 11/23 5/23 4/23 16/23 7/23 4/23 7/23 12/23 Z  W W 127m (2010) h 40% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 11/66 5/66 4/66 16/66 7/66 4/66 7/66 12/66 2.5 0.Japan 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income . Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < : d ^ .5 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   71 .0  & 0.0  government 1.5 0.5  0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1. /  W Accountable Government ' 1.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0 >   in administrative 0.5 > stable  0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.

0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   72 .5 association / auditing and review 0.Jordan 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D  & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 36/66 27/66 26/66 56/66 32/66 21/66 22/66 30/66 Z Z 2/5 2/5 2/5 3/5 2/5 2/5 2/5 2/5  / Z 6/16 1/16 3/16 12/16 4/16 1/16 1/16 4/16 ' / Z D E W 6m (2010) h 29% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5  0.0  government 1.0  & 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0 >   in administrative 0.5 0.5 > stable  0.5 0.5 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Jordan d ^ > D / D  E Accountable Government ' 1.

5 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D   & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 59/66 43/66 27/66 46/66 43/66 31/66 25/66 38/66 ^ Z Z 11/12 8/12 5/12 9/12 7/12 4/12 3/12 7/12 / ' Z 18/19 11/19 3/19 14/19 12/19 7/19 4/19 8/19 Z  W 16m (2010) h 16% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.5  0.Kazakhstan 1.5 > stable  0.5 0.5 0.0  & 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0  Z  0.0  government >   in administrative 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < < d ^ h D /    Accountable Government ' 1.0 Access to Justice W  W 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z Administrative without unreasonable  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   73 .0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d 1.

0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z Administrative without unreasonable  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   74 .0  Z  0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d 1.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0  & 0.Kenya 1.0 Access to Justice W  W 1.5 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < < d ^ > / ^ ^ Accountable Government ' 1.0  government >   in administrative 0.5 > stable  0. Mombasa. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Nairobi.5  0. Nakuru Z 61/66 63/66 58/66 52/66 64/66 63/66 59/66 41/66 Z Z 7/9 8/9 5/9 5/9 8/9 8/9 7/9 3/9 / Z 6/8 7/8 6/8 5/8 7/8 6/8 5/8 3/8 ' Z Sub-Saharan W 40m (2010) h 11% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.

5 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0. Djalalabd Z Z 10/12 12/12 8/12 11/12 12/12 9/12 11/12 11/12 / Z 5/8 5/8 1/8 4/8 4/8 2/8 4/8 7/8 ' Z    W 5m (2010) h 22% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z Administrative without unreasonable  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   75 .0  Z  0. Osh.5 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d 1.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 0.5 > stable  0.0 Access to Justice W  W 1.0  government >   in administrative 0.0  & 0.Kyrgyzstan 1.5 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 57/66 61/66 30/66 50/66 56/66 48/66 58/66 60/66 Bishkek.5 association / auditing and review 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < < d ^ > /    Accountable Government ' 1.5  0.

5 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.Lebanon 1.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D  & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 39/66 48/66 34/66 27/66 57/66 61/66 52/66 45/66  Z Z 3/5 4/5 3/5 1/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 4/5 d / Z 8/19 14/19 6/19 5/19 18/19 19/19 17/19 12/19 ' ^ Z D E W 4m (2010) h 67% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  government 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   76 .0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 0.0  & 0.5  0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < > d ^ h D / D  E Accountable Government ' 1.5 > stable  0.0 >   in administrative 0.

0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 0.5 > stable  0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0  government 1.5  0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 >   in administrative 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 45/66 62/66 60/66 41/66 66/66 66/66 65/66 65/66 Z Z 4/9 7/9 7/9 4/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 9/9 / Monrovia ' Z 2/8 6/8 8/8 2/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 8/8 Z Sub-Saharan W 4m (2010) h 27% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.Liberia 1.0  & 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < > d ^ > / ^ ^ Accountable Government ' 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   77 .5 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.

0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < D d ^ h D /  W Accountable Government ' 1.0 >   in administrative 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  government 1.5 0.5 0.5  0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   78 .Malaysia 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 > stable  0.0  & 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D W & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score < ' > Z 34/66 26/66 12/66 59/66 42/66 40/66 47/66 33/66 Z Z / : / Z  ' 6/19 4/19 1/19 18/19 11/19 11/19 15/19 5/19 Z  W 28m (2010) h 13% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 9/13 7/13 6/13 11/13 10/13 10/13 9/13 11/13 2.

0  & 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.Mexico 1.0 >   in administrative 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' D  ' D Z 40/66 53/66 53/66 45/66 27/66 35/66 57/66 63/66 Z Z 7/12 10/12 7/12 10/12 4/12 6/12 11/12 11/12 / Z ' 9/19 17/19 13/19 13/19 5/19 8/19 18/19 17/19 Z >  W 109m (2010) h 26% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.5 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Mexico d ^ h D / >  Accountable Government ' 1.5 > stable  0.5 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.5  0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0  government 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   79 .

0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  & 0.5 > stable  0.0 >   in administrative 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D  & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 41/66 59/66 35/66 60/66 49/66 47/66 45/66 59/66  Z Z 4/5 5/5 4/5 4/5 4/5 4/5 4/5 5/5 / Z ' Z 8/16 13/16 5/16 14/16 11/16 10/16 7/16 14/16 & Z D E W 32m (2010) h 19% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.5 0.0  government 1.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5  0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   80 . Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Morocco d ^ > D / D  E Accountable Government ' 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.Morocco 1.

0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0  government 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   81 . t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 5/66 7/66 18/66 3/66 3/66 5/66 3/66 6/66 Z Z 3/12 3/12 10/12 3/12 2/12 3/12 3/12 2/12 Z ' / Z 5/23 7/23 17/23 3/23 3/23 5/23 3/23 6/23 ' Z t E  W 17m (2010) h 16% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 >   in administrative 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 0.5 > stable  0.0  & 0.5  0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income .0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0. / t  E Accountable Government ' 1.5 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Netherlands d ^ .0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.Netherlands 1.

t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 2/66 1/66 11/66 4/66 2/66 3/66 4/66 3/66 Auckland. Christchurch.5 > stable  0.5  0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0  government 1. /  W Accountable Government ' 1. Wellington Z Z 1/13 1/13 5/13 1/13 1/13 1/13 1/13 2/13 / Z 2/23 1/23 11/23 4/23 2/23 3/23 4/23 3/23 ' Z  W W 4m (2010) h 48% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 >   in administrative 0.5 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income .New Zealand 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < New Zealand d ^ .0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.0  & 0.5 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   82 .0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.

0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0  & 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5 > stable  0.0  government 1.5 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Nigeria d ^ > D / ^ ^ Accountable Government ' 1.5  0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   83 .0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5 0.Nigeria 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 44/66 52/66 63/66 55/66 59/66 50/66 34/66 53/66 > Z Z 3/9 5/9 9/9 6/9 4/9 4/9 3/9 7/9 < / / ' Z 10/16 11/16 14/16 11/16 13/16 11/16 2/16 11/16 Z Sub-Saharan W 156m (2010) h 11% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 >   in administrative 0.

0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0. Trondheim Z Z 1/12 2/12 1/12 2/12 6/12 2/12 1/12 1/12 / Z 1/23 3/23 3/23 2/23 10/23 2/23 1/23 1/23 ' Z t E  W 5m (2010) h 25% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 1/66 3/66 3/66 2/66 10/66 2/66 1/66 1/66 2.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z Oslo.5  0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   84 .Norway 1.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5 > stable  0.0  & 0. / t  E Accountable Government ' 1.5 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income .0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1. Bergen.0 >   in administrative 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.0  government 1.5 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < E d ^ .

0  & 0.5 0.5 association / auditing and review 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' < Z 60/66 65/66 66/66 63/66 65/66 59/66 66/66 61/66 > Z Z 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 & / ' Z 14/16 16/16 16/16 15/16 16/16 15/16 16/16 15/16 Z South Asia W 167m (2010) h 14% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0 >   in administrative 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 0.0  government 1.5  0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   85 .Pakistan 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Pakistan d ^ > D / South Asia Accountable Government ' 1.5 > stable  0.

WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 23/66 45/66 50/66 24/66 20/66 28/66 49/66 36/66 > Z Z 2/12 7/12 4/12 2/12 3/12 5/12 8/12 3/12 / Z d ' 2/19 12/19 11/19 3/19 3/19 5/19 16/19 7/19 Z >  W 30m (2010) h 34% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.5  0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   86 .5 0.0  & 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0  government 1.5 > stable  0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Peru d ^ h D / >  Accountable Government ' 1.Peru 1.0 >   in administrative 0.

5  0.Philippines 1. Davao.5 association / auditing and review 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D W & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 31/66 33/66 39/66 40/66 46/66 34/66 56/66 47/66 Manila.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 0.5 > stable  0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1. Cebu Z Z 8/13 10/13 12/13 9/13 12/13 9/13 12/13 12/13 / Z 3/16 5/16 9/16 6/16 9/16 5/16 13/16 8/16 ' Z  W 94m (2010) h 15% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   87 .0  government 1.5 0.0 >   in administrative 0.0  & 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < W d ^ > D /  W Accountable Government ' 1.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.

0  government 1.5 association / auditing and review 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income . t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 13/66 21/66 19/66 10/66 23/66 22/66 30/66 17/66 t Z Z 2/12 2/12 2/12 3/12 2/12 2/12 5/12 3/12  / ' Z 13/23 20/23 18/23 10/23 20/23 20/23 21/23 17/23 > Z    W 38m (2010) h 8% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   88 .0 >   in administrative 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Poland d ^ .5 0.5 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.Poland 1.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0  & 0.5 > stable  0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5  0. /    Accountable Government ' 1.

0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   89 . Cluj Z Z 5/12 4/12 3/12 4/12 5/12 7/12 7/12 5/12 / ' Z 10/19 6/19 2/19 2/19 7/19 10/19 9/19 3/19 Z  W 21m (2010) h 12% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D   & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 43/66 30/66 20/66 23/66 36/66 38/66 35/66 28/66 Bucharest.5 > stable  0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 >   in administrative 0.Romania 1.5  0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0. Iasi. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Z d ^ h D /    Accountable Government ' 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 0.0  & 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0  government 1.5 0.

0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1. Novosibirsk Z 55/66 40/66 45/66 47/66 52/66 49/66 40/66 23/66 Z Z 9/12 7/12 12/12 10/12 10/12 10/12 9/12 4/12 / ' Z 16/19 10/19 10/19 15/19 16/19 14/19 13/19 1/19 Z  W 140m (2010) h 12% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.Russia 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.5 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Z d ^ h D /    Accountable Government ' Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0  government 1.0  & 0.5  0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   90 .0 1.5 0.0 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D   & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Moscow. Saint Petersburg.0 >   in administrative 0.5 > stable  0.

5 0.5 0.0  government 1.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 > stable  0.Senegal 1.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  & 0. Thies.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5  0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 51/66 37/66 36/66 38/66 62/66 39/66 43/66 46/66 Dakar.0 >   in administrative 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   91 . Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Senegal d ^ > D / ^ ^ Accountable Government ' 1.5 association / auditing and review 0. Diourbel Z Z 5/9 2/9 1/9 3/9 6/9 2/9 5/9 5/9 / ' Z 11/16 7/16 6/16 5/16 14/16 6/16 5/16 7/16 Z Sub-Saharan W 13m (2010) h 25% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.

0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0  government 1.5 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0. /  W Accountable Government ' 1.Singapore 1.5 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0 >   in administrative 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income .0  & 0. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 20/66 4/66 2/66 39/66 19/66 11/66 15/66 5/66 Z Z 5/13 2/13 2/13 8/13 6/13 4/13 5/13 3/13 / ^ ' Z 18/23 4/23 2/23 22/23 17/23 11/23 15/23 5/23 Z  W W 5m (2010) h 89% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.5  0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < ^ d ^ .5 > stable  0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   92 .

0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0  & 0.5 > stable  0.South Africa 1.5 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' :  d Durban ' Z 3/19 5/19 17/19 7/19 4/19 2/19 2/19 4/19 Z 25/66 29/66 61/66 30/66 24/66 23/66 23/66 29/66 Z Z 2/9 1/9 8/9 2/9 1/9 1/9 1/9 1/9 / Z Sub-Saharan W 50m (2010) h 20% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5  0.0 >   in administrative 0.5 0.0  government 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < ^ d ^ h D / ^ ^ Accountable Government ' 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   93 .

5 association / auditing and review 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5 0. Incheon Z Z 7/13 6/13 7/13 4/13 5/13 5/13 6/13 6/13 / ' Z 22/23 19/23 19/23 17/23 14/23 16/23 17/23 21/23 Z  W W 49m (2010) h 32% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0  & 0.5 > stable  0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < ^ < d ^ . WJP Rule of Law Index Income .0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 0.0  government 1. Busan.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   94 .0 >   in administrative 0.5  0. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 30/66 20/66 21/66 17/66 14/66 16/66 17/66 21/66 Seoul. /  W Accountable Government ' 1.South Korea 1.

Barcelona.0  government 1.5 > stable  0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0  & 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income .0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   95 .0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Madrid.Spain 1.5 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < ^ d ^ . Valencia Z 18/66 19/66 24/66 12/66 22/66 19/66 19/66 19/66 Z Z 11/12 11/12 11/12 7/12 11/12 11/12 10/12 10/12 / ' Z 17/23 18/23 21/23 12/23 19/23 19/23 18/23 19/23 Z t E  W 46m (2010) h 25% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 >   in administrative 0.5  0.5 association / auditing and review 0. / t  E Accountable Government ' 1.5 0.

0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   96 . / t  E Accountable Government ' 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income .0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.0 >   in administrative 0.5 > stable  0.5 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0  & 0.0  government 1. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ^ ' Z 3/66 2/66 5/66 1/66 1/66 1/66 5/66 7/66 Z Z ' / Z 2/12 1/12 2/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 4/12 3/12 D ' 3/23 2/23 5/23 1/23 1/23 1/23 5/23 7/23 Z t E  W 9m (2010) h 22% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.Sweden 1.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5  0.5 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Sweden d ^ .

0  government 1.0 >   in administrative 0.5 0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 > stable  0.5 0.0  & 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.Thailand 1.5  0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Thailand d ^ > D /  W Accountable Government ' 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   97 .5 association / auditing and review 0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D W & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score  ' Z 42/66 28/66 38/66 32/66 45/66 33/66 53/66 24/66 E Z Z 12/13 8/13 11/13 7/13 11/13 8/13 11/13 7/13 / W ' Z 9/16 2/16 8/16 2/16 8/16 4/16 11/16 1/16 < Z  W 64m (2010) h 12% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.

5 association / auditing and review 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < d d ^ h D /    Accountable Government ' 1.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5  0.5 0.5 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   98 . WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D   & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 52/66 39/66 43/66 58/66 48/66 36/66 27/66 48/66 / Z Z 8/12 6/12 11/12 12/12 8/12 5/12 4/12 8/12 / ' Z 15/19 9/19 8/19 17/19 14/19 9/19 5/19 13/19 / Z  W 71m (2010) h 24% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.Turkey 1.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.0 >   in administrative 0.5 > stable  0.0  & 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0  government 1.

0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < h d ^ > / ^ ^ Accountable Government ' 1.5  0.0  government 1.5 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' < Z 54/66 56/66 59/66 61/66 51/66 53/66 55/66 42/66 Z Z t / D ' Z 4/8 3/8 7/8 6/8 2/8 3/8 3/8 4/8 Z Sub-Saharan W 34m (2010) h 5% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 6/9 6/9 6/9 8/9 3/9 5/9 6/9 4/9 2.5 association / auditing and review 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 >   in administrative 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   99 .0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.5 > stable  0.5 0.0  & 0.Uganda 1.

Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < h d ^ > D /    Accountable Government ' 1.Ukraine 1.0 >   in administrative 0.5 > stable  0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.5 association / auditing and review 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   100 .5 0.5  0.0  & 0.0  government 1.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D   & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' < Z 64/66 57/66 28/66 44/66 53/66 64/66 63/66 52/66 <  Z Z 12/12 11/12 6/12 8/12 11/12 12/12 12/12 9/12 / ' Z 16/16 12/16 4/16 8/16 12/16 16/16 15/16 10/16 Z  W 45m (2010) h 12% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.

0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5 > stable  0. / D  E Accountable Government ' 1.5 0. WJP Rule of Law Index Income . Sharjah.0 >   in administrative 0.5  0.United Arab Emirates 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   101 .0  government 1.5 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Dubai.0  & 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0. Abu-Dhabi Z 28/66 13/66 6/66 51/66 21/66 12/66 11/66 4/66 Z Z 1/5 1/5 1/5 2/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 / ' Z 20/23 13/23 6/23 23/23 18/23 12/23 11/23 4/23 Z D E  W 5m (2010) h 56% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < h  d ^ .

WJP Rule of Law Index Income . Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < h < d ^ .0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.5 0.5 > stable  0.0 >   in administrative 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.5  0.5 0.0  government 1.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score > ' Z 9/66 16/66 14/66 13/66 4/66 6/66 10/66 13/66  Z Z 7/12 9/12 7/12 8/12 3/12 4/12 7/12 7/12 / ' ' Z 9/23 16/23 13/23 13/23 4/23 6/23 10/23 13/23 Z t E  W 62m (2010) h 19% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0  & 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.United Kingdom 1.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   102 .0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0. / t  E Accountable Government ' 1.

/ t  E Accountable Government ' 1.0  & 0.5 association / auditing and review 0.5  0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < h ^ d ^ .5 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   103 .0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5 > stable  0. t:W Z & & & & & & & & > > '  ^ / & W Score E ' z Z 16/66 17/66 13/66 19/66 12/66 15/66 21/66 20/66 > Z Z 10/12 10/12 6/12 11/12 8/12 9/12 11/12 11/12 /  ' Z 16/23 17/23 12/23 18/23 12/23 15/23 20/23 20/23 Z t E  W 310m (2010) h 13% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2. WJP Rule of Law Index Income .5 0.0 1.United States 1.0 >   government  in administrative 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.

0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0. Maracaibo.5 0.0 >   in administrative 0.5  0.5 > stable  0.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1.0  government 1.Venezuela 1. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < s d ^ h D / >  Accountable Government ' 1.5 0.0  & 0.0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   104 . Barquisimeto Z Z 12/12 11/12 11/12 12/12 11/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 / ' Z 19/19 18/19 18/19 16/19 17/19 18/19 19/19 19/19 Z >  W 29m (2010) h 22% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : 2.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income h D & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' Z 66/66 54/66 62/66 53/66 55/66 60/66 60/66 66/66 Caracas.5 association / auditing and review 0.

0 W do not resort to violence to redress grievances in the judicial branch 0.5  0. Scores for all WJP Rule of Law Index sub-factors / d < Vietnam d ^ > D /  W Accountable Government ' 1.5 association / auditing and review 0.0  government 1. E .0 government  not subject to unreasonable  Z  ' regulations without K are available ' K requested is available   105 .5 0.5 > stable  0.  D  . Phong / Z 5/16 6/16 1/16 10/16 7/16 7/16 9/16 5/16 ' Z 35/66 36/66 22/66 54/66 40/66 42/66 50/66 32/66 Z  W 88m (2010) h 14% in three largest cities K & Z K ' Z  Access to Civil Justice   : Z Z 10/13 11/13 8/13 10/13 9/13 11/13 10/13 10/13 2.0  treatment discrimination ' the executive branch misconduct & and religion d subject to the law ' &  Z Open Government and Regulatory Enforcement > d Access to Justice W  W 1. WJP Rule of Law Index Income > D W & & & & & & & & t:W Z > > '  ^ / & W Score ' .0 >   in administrative 0.0 Administrative without unreasonable Z   0.0 Security and Fundamental Rights ' & 1.Vietnam 1.5 0.0  & 0.

org. (2011) “Measuring the Rule of Law”. A. organized by factor. The first group of tables presents scores. The second group of tables presents countries’ rankings organized by region. available online at www. The final group of tables presents countries’ rankings by income group. global rankings. regional rankings. J and Ponce.worldjusticeproject.Data Tables Data Tables This section presents data tables for the eight factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index included in this report. and income group rankings for all countries. All country classifications can be found in the Data Notes section of this report and in Botero. 107 .

WJP Rule of Law Index Factor 1: Limited Government Powers  Albania Argentina Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Bolivia  Bulgaria Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile China Colombia Croatia  Z  Z El Salvador Estonia  & ' ' ' . < ^ Z  India Indonesia Iran / Jamaica : Jordan < < < > > D Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria E Pakistan Peru W Poland Z Z Senegal ^ ^ ^ < ^ Sweden Thailand d h h h h < h ^ s Vietnam Score ' Z 55/66 46/66 9/66 8/66 58/66 15/66 60/66 24/66 50/66 66/66 64/66 11/66 18/66 31/66 34/66 35/66 23/66 49/66 32/66 10/66 44/66 14/66 12/66 41/66 42/66 6/66 51/66 47/66 38/66 22/66 25/66 5/66 27/66 43/66 63/66 61/66 48/66 62/66 26/66 53/66 59/66 7/66 1/66 52/66 3/66 65/66 45/66 33/66 21/66 30/66 40/66 37/66 4/66 29/66 20/66 19/66 2/66 28/66 39/66 56/66 57/66 13/66 16/66 17/66 54/66 36/66 Z Z 10/12 8/12 5/13 4/12 2/3 8/12 12/12 2/12 9/12 13/13 9/9 5/12 1/12 9/13 5/12 5/12 3/12 9/12 4/12 1/12 4/9 7/12 6/12 3/9 6/12 4/13 1/3 12/13 3/5 12/12 3/12 3/13 2/5 8/12 8/9 12/12 4/5 7/9 7/13 10/12 5/5 3/12 1/13 5/9 2/12 3/3 7/12 10/13 2/12 4/12 7/12 2/9 2/13 1/9 6/13 11/12 1/12 8/13 6/12 6/9 11/12 1/5 9/12 10/12 11/12 11/13 / Z ' 19/19 13/19 9/23 8/23 4/8 15/23 14/16 2/19 16/19 8/8 15/16 11/23 1/19 3/16 7/19 23/23 22/23 15/19 4/16 10/23 2/8 14/23 12/23 1/8 8/16 6/23 10/16 9/16 8/19 21/23 3/19 5/23 1/16 11/19 7/8 5/8 14/19 6/8 4/19 17/19 13/16 7/23 1/23 11/16 3/23 16/16 12/19 5/16 20/23 6/19 10/19 7/16 4/23 5/19 19/23 18/23 2/23 2/16 9/19 3/8 12/16 13/23 16/23 17/23 18/19 6/16   108 . < ^ Z  India Indonesia Iran / Jamaica : Jordan < < < > > D Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria E Pakistan Peru W Poland Z Z Senegal ^ ^ ^ < ^ Sweden Thailand d h h h h < h ^ s Vietnam Factor 2: Absence of Corruption / Z ' 13/19 12/19 4/23 8/23 3/8 12/23 13/16 4/19 14/19 8/8 15/16 7/23 1/19 7/16 5/19 23/23 19/23 11/19 4/16 10/23 7/8 15/23 6/23 1/8 12/16 14/23 2/16 1/16 17/19 21/23 7/19 11/23 6/16 18/19 6/8 5/8 8/19 2/8 6/19 9/19 8/16 5/23 2/23 10/16 1/23 14/16 2/19 3/16 13/23 10/19 16/19 11/16 18/23 3/19 22/23 17/23 3/23 9/16 15/19 4/8 16/16 20/23 9/23 16/23 19/19 5/16 Score ' Z 49/66 47/66 4/66 8/66 48/66 12/66 56/66 26/66 50/66 65/66 62/66 7/66 17/66 37/66 27/66 33/66 21/66 46/66 32/66 10/66 63/66 15/66 6/66 19/66 53/66 14/66 24/66 22/66 58/66 29/66 38/66 11/66 36/66 59/66 61/66 57/66 39/66 45/66 34/66 40/66 41/66 5/66 2/66 44/66 1/66 60/66 23/66 31/66 13/66 43/66 55/66 51/66 20/66 25/66 30/66 18/66 3/66 42/66 52/66 54/66 64/66 28/66 9/66 16/66 66/66 35/66 Z Z 6/12 9/12 2/13 6/12 2/3 8/12 11/12 3/12 7/12 13/13 8/9 5/12 1/12 11/13 4/12 4/12 3/12 8/12 5/12 1/12 9/9 9/12 4/12 1/9 10/12 4/13 1/3 6/13 5/5 12/12 6/12 3/13 2/5 11/12 7/9 10/12 3/5 4/9 9/13 7/12 4/5 3/12 1/13 3/9 1/12 3/3 2/12 8/13 2/12 5/12 9/12 5/9 5/13 2/9 7/13 11/12 2/12 12/13 8/12 6/9 12/12 1/5 7/12 10/12 12/12 10/13  Albania Argentina Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Bolivia  Bulgaria Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile China Colombia Croatia  Z  Z El Salvador Estonia  & ' ' ' .

< ^ Z  India Indonesia Iran / Jamaica : Jordan < < < > > D Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria E Pakistan Peru W Poland Z Z Senegal ^ ^ ^ < ^ Sweden Thailand d h h h h < h ^ s Vietnam Factor 4: Fundamental Rights Z Z 9/12 9/12 4/13 4/12 1/3 8/12 3/12 5/12 10/12 13/13 2/9 3/12 1/12 9/13 12/12 7/12 4/12 10/12 2/12 1/12 4/9 9/12 5/12 3/9 6/12 1/13 2/3 10/13 5/5 12/12 8/12 3/13 2/5 5/12 5/9 8/12 3/5 7/9 6/13 7/12 4/5 10/12 5/13 9/9 1/12 3/3 4/12 12/13 2/12 3/12 12/12 1/9 2/13 8/9 7/13 11/12 2/12 11/13 11/12 6/9 6/12 1/5 7/12 6/12 11/12 8/13 ' Z 31/66 56/66 10/66 8/66 42/66 15/66 49/66 51/66 32/66 41/66 46/66 7/66 44/66 25/66 64/66 29/66 23/66 57/66 48/66 17/66 54/66 16/66 9/66 47/66 52/66 1/66 65/66 37/66 40/66 33/66 55/66 4/66 26/66 27/66 58/66 30/66 34/66 60/66 12/66 53/66 35/66 18/66 11/66 63/66 3/66 66/66 50/66 39/66 19/66 20/66 45/66 36/66 2/66 61/66 21/66 24/66 5/66 38/66 43/66 59/66 28/66 6/66 14/66 13/66 62/66 22/66 / Z ' 4/19 15/19 10/23 8/23 3/8 14/23 12/16 12/19 5/19 2/8 10/16 7/23 9/19 2/16 19/19 22/23 20/23 16/19 11/16 16/23 5/8 15/23 9/23 4/8 13/16 1/23 15/16 7/16 7/19 23/23 14/19 4/23 3/16 3/19 6/8 1/8 6/19 8/8 1/19 13/19 5/16 17/23 11/23 14/16 3/23 16/16 11/19 9/16 18/23 2/19 10/19 6/16 2/23 17/19 19/23 21/23 5/23 8/16 8/19 7/8 4/16 6/23 13/23 12/23 18/19 1/16 Albania Argentina Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Bolivia  Bulgaria Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile China Colombia Croatia  Z  Z El Salvador Estonia  & ' ' ' .Data Tables Factor 3: Order and Security Score Albania Argentina Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Bolivia  Bulgaria Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile China Colombia Croatia  Z  Z El Salvador Estonia  & ' ' ' . < ^ Z  India Indonesia Iran / Jamaica : Jordan < < < > > D Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria E Pakistan Peru W Poland Z Z Senegal ^ ^ ^ < ^ Sweden Thailand d h h h h < h ^ s Vietnam Score ' Z 28/66 33/66 7/66 5/66 48/66 11/66 49/66 25/66 37/66 62/66 57/66 14/66 18/66 64/66 42/66 26/66 9/66 35/66 34/66 8/66 65/66 15/66 6/66 22/66 43/66 21/66 36/66 29/66 66/66 20/66 31/66 16/66 56/66 46/66 52/66 50/66 27/66 41/66 59/66 45/66 60/66 3/66 4/66 55/66 2/66 63/66 24/66 40/66 10/66 23/66 47/66 38/66 39/66 30/66 17/66 12/66 1/66 32/66 58/66 61/66 44/66 51/66 13/66 19/66 53/66 54/66 Z Z 6/12 5/12 2/13 4/12 2/3 6/12 11/12 3/12 7/12 12/13 7/9 9/12 1/12 13/13 8/12 5/12 2/12 7/12 6/12 1/12 9/9 10/12 5/12 1/9 9/12 5/13 1/3 6/13 5/5 12/12 4/12 3/13 3/5 9/12 5/9 11/12 1/5 4/9 11/13 10/12 4/5 3/12 1/13 6/9 2/12 3/3 2/12 9/13 3/12 4/12 10/12 3/9 8/13 2/9 4/13 7/12 1/12 7/13 12/12 8/9 8/12 2/5 8/12 11/12 12/12 10/13 / Z ' 6/19 9/19 7/23 5/23 3/8 11/23 9/16 4/19 11/19 7/8 13/16 14/23 1/19 16/16 12/19 21/23 9/23 10/19 3/16 8/23 8/8 15/23 6/23 1/8 7/16 20/23 4/16 1/16 19/19 19/23 8/19 16/23 12/16 14/19 5/8 4/8 5/19 2/8 18/19 13/19 14/16 3/23 4/23 11/16 2/23 15/16 3/19 6/16 10/23 2/19 15/19 5/16 22/23 7/19 17/23 12/23 1/23 2/16 17/19 6/8 8/16 23/23 13/23 18/23 16/19 10/16   109 .

WJP Rule of Law Index Factor 5: Open Government Score Albania Argentina Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Bolivia  Bulgaria Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile China Colombia Croatia  Z  Z El Salvador Estonia  & ' ' ' . < ^ Z  India Indonesia Iran / Jamaica : Jordan < < < > > D Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria E Pakistan Peru W Poland Z Z Senegal ^ ^ ^ < ^ Sweden Thailand d h h h h < h ^ s Vietnam Score ' Z 51/66 54/66 7/66 9/66 58/66 17/66 55/66 26/66 45/66 65/66 57/66 13/66 20/66 43/66 27/66 37/66 25/66 52/66 24/66 10/66 62/66 14/66 8/66 44/66 46/66 18/66 56/66 32/66 29/66 30/66 41/66 4/66 21/66 31/66 63/66 48/66 61/66 66/66 40/66 35/66 47/66 5/66 3/66 50/66 2/66 59/66 28/66 34/66 22/66 38/66 49/66 39/66 11/66 23/66 16/66 19/66 1/66 33/66 36/66 53/66 64/66 12/66 6/66 15/66 60/66 42/66 Z Z 11/12 10/12 3/13 6/12 2/3 10/12 11/12 3/12 8/12 13/13 6/9 7/12 1/12 12/13 4/12 6/12 3/12 9/12 2/12 1/12 7/9 8/12 5/12 3/9 8/12 6/13 1/3 7/13 3/5 12/12 7/12 2/13 2/5 4/12 8/9 9/12 5/5 9/9 10/13 6/12 4/5 3/12 1/13 4/9 2/12 3/3 5/12 9/13 2/12 7/12 10/12 2/9 4/13 1/9 5/13 11/12 1/12 8/13 5/12 5/9 12/12 1/5 4/12 9/12 12/12 11/13 / Z ' 15/19 17/19 7/23 9/23 4/8 17/23 12/16 3/19 13/19 7/8 14/16 13/23 1/19 8/16 4/19 23/23 21/23 16/19 2/16 10/23 5/8 14/23 8/23 1/8 9/16 18/23 13/16 3/16 6/19 22/23 12/19 4/23 1/16 7/19 6/8 2/8 19/19 8/8 11/19 8/19 10/16 5/23 3/23 11/16 2/23 15/16 5/19 5/16 20/23 10/19 14/19 6/16 11/23 2/19 16/23 19/23 1/23 4/16 9/19 3/8 16/16 12/23 6/23 15/23 18/19 7/16   110 . < ^ Z  India Indonesia Iran / Jamaica : Jordan < < < > > D Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria E Pakistan Peru W Poland Z Z Senegal ^ ^ ^ < ^ Sweden Thailand d h h h h < h ^ s Vietnam Factor 6: Effective Regulatory Enforcement Z Z 9/12 9/12 4/13 5/12 2/3 9/12 6/12 5/12 6/12 13/13 7/9 4/12 1/12 7/13 2/12 4/12 3/12 8/12 10/12 1/12 5/9 10/12 7/12 2/9 7/12 2/13 1/3 8/13 3/5 12/12 12/12 3/13 2/5 7/12 8/9 12/12 5/5 9/9 10/13 4/12 4/5 2/12 1/13 4/9 6/12 3/3 3/12 12/13 2/12 5/12 10/12 6/9 6/13 1/9 5/13 11/12 1/12 11/13 8/12 3/9 11/12 1/5 3/12 8/12 11/12 9/13 ' Z 50/66 44/66 8/66 9/66 54/66 15/66 34/66 30/66 37/66 61/66 63/66 6/66 16/66 26/66 18/66 33/66 28/66 39/66 47/66 13/66 60/66 17/66 11/66 31/66 38/66 5/66 25/66 29/66 41/66 35/66 58/66 7/66 32/66 43/66 64/66 56/66 57/66 66/66 42/66 27/66 49/66 3/66 2/66 59/66 10/66 65/66 20/66 46/66 23/66 36/66 52/66 62/66 19/66 24/66 14/66 22/66 1/66 45/66 48/66 51/66 53/66 21/66 4/66 12/66 55/66 40/66 / Z ' 15/19 13/19 8/23 9/23 3/8 15/23 5/16 6/19 8/19 6/8 15/16 6/23 1/19 2/16 2/19 22/23 21/23 9/19 10/16 13/23 5/8 16/23 11/23 1/8 6/16 5/23 1/16 3/16 10/19 23/23 19/19 7/23 4/16 12/19 7/8 4/8 18/19 8/8 11/19 5/19 11/16 3/23 2/23 13/16 10/23 16/16 3/19 9/16 20/23 7/19 16/19 14/16 17/23 4/19 14/23 19/23 1/23 8/16 14/19 2/8 12/16 18/23 4/23 12/23 17/19 7/16 Albania Argentina Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Bolivia  Bulgaria Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile China Colombia Croatia  Z  Z El Salvador Estonia  & ' ' ' .

< ^ Z  India Indonesia Iran / Jamaica : Jordan < < < > > D Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria E Pakistan Peru W Poland Z Z Senegal ^ ^ ^ < ^ Sweden Thailand d h h h h < h ^ s Vietnam Factor 8: Effective Criminal Justice Z Z 10/12 4/12 4/13 5/12 2/3 6/12 10/12 2/12 8/12 13/13 8/9 9/12 1/12 8/13 3/12 6/12 2/12 7/12 6/12 1/12 4/9 8/12 2/12 2/9 9/12 3/13 1/3 7/13 3/5 12/12 5/12 2/13 2/5 3/12 7/9 11/12 5/5 9/9 9/13 11/12 4/5 3/12 1/13 3/9 1/12 3/3 8/12 12/13 5/12 7/12 9/12 5/9 5/13 1/9 6/13 10/12 4/12 11/13 4/12 6/9 12/12 1/5 7/12 11/12 12/12 10/13 ' Z 46/66 31/66 13/66 8/66 62/66 9/66 54/66 24/66 38/66 64/66 61/66 16/66 18/66 44/66 29/66 32/66 20/66 39/66 37/66 6/66 42/66 14/66 2/66 26/66 51/66 12/66 48/66 41/66 28/66 33/66 36/66 7/66 22/66 25/66 59/66 58/66 52/66 65/66 47/66 57/66 45/66 3/66 4/66 34/66 1/66 66/66 49/66 56/66 30/66 35/66 40/66 43/66 15/66 23/66 17/66 19/66 5/66 53/66 27/66 55/66 63/66 11/66 10/66 21/66 60/66 50/66 / Z ' 14/19 8/19 13/23 8/23 6/8 9/23 12/16 3/19 11/19 7/8 14/16 16/23 1/19 6/16 7/19 22/23 19/23 12/19 3/16 6/23 2/8 14/23 2/23 1/8 10/16 12/23 8/16 4/16 6/19 23/23 10/19 7/23 1/16 4/19 5/8 4/8 17/19 8/8 15/19 18/19 7/16 3/23 4/23 2/16 1/23 16/16 16/19 13/16 21/23 9/19 13/19 5/16 15/23 2/19 17/23 18/23 5/23 11/16 5/19 3/8 15/16 11/23 10/23 20/23 19/19 9/16 Albania Argentina Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Bolivia  Bulgaria Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile China Colombia Croatia  Z  Z El Salvador Estonia  & ' ' ' . < ^ Z  India Indonesia Iran / Jamaica : Jordan < < < > > D Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria E Pakistan Peru W Poland Z Z Senegal ^ ^ ^ < ^ Sweden Thailand d h h h h < h ^ s Vietnam Score ' Z 57/66 56/66 15/66 8/66 40/66 18/66 62/66 44/66 64/66 55/66 58/66 10/66 27/66 25/66 49/66 37/66 11/66 43/66 54/66 14/66 50/66 22/66 9/66 31/66 51/66 2/66 35/66 26/66 39/66 16/66 34/66 12/66 30/66 38/66 41/66 60/66 45/66 65/66 33/66 63/66 59/66 6/66 3/66 53/66 1/66 61/66 36/66 47/66 17/66 28/66 23/66 46/66 5/66 29/66 21/66 19/66 7/66 24/66 48/66 42/66 52/66 4/66 13/66 20/66 66/66 32/66 Z Z 10/12 9/12 5/13 4/12 2/3 9/12 10/12 5/12 12/12 13/13 8/9 6/12 1/12 8/13 6/12 6/12 1/12 4/12 8/12 2/12 6/9 12/12 5/12 2/9 7/12 1/13 1/3 9/13 3/5 8/12 2/12 4/13 2/5 7/12 3/9 11/12 4/5 9/9 11/13 11/12 5/5 2/12 2/13 7/9 1/12 3/3 3/12 12/13 3/12 5/12 4/12 5/9 3/13 1/9 6/13 10/12 3/12 7/13 8/12 4/9 9/12 1/5 7/12 11/12 12/12 10/13 / Z ' 16/19 15/19 15/23 8/23 2/8 18/23 16/16 11/19 18/19 6/8 13/16 10/23 2/19 2/16 14/19 23/23 11/23 10/19 12/16 14/23 5/8 22/23 9/23 1/8 9/16 2/23 6/16 3/16 9/19 16/23 6/19 12/23 4/16 8/19 3/8 7/8 12/19 8/8 5/19 17/19 14/16 6/23 3/23 11/16 1/23 15/16 7/19 8/16 17/23 3/19 1/19 7/16 5/23 4/19 21/23 19/23 7/23 1/16 13/19 4/8 10/16 4/23 13/23 20/23 19/19 5/16   111 .Data Tables Factor 7: Access to Civil Justice Score Albania Argentina Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Bolivia  Bulgaria Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile China Colombia Croatia  Z  Z El Salvador Estonia  & ' ' ' .

< ^ Z  &  5/13 13/13 9/13 4/13 12/13 3/13 7/13 1/13 10/13 2/13 6/13 8/13 11/13 > ' Powers 2/13 13/13 11/13 4/13 6/13 3/13 9/13 1/13 8/13 5/13 & Order and ^ 4/13 13/13 9/13 1/13 10/13 3/13 6/13 5/13 12/13 2/13 7/13 11/13 8/13 & & Z 2/13 12/13 13/13 5/13 6/13 3/13 11/13 1/13 9/13 8/13 4/13 7/13 10/13 & K ' 4/13 13/13 7/13 2/13 8/13 3/13 10/13 1/13 12/13 6/13 5/13 11/13 9/13 & Z  3/13 13/13 12/13 6/13 7/13 2/13 10/13 1/13 9/13 4/13 5/13 8/13 11/13 & Access to Civil Justice 4/13 13/13 8/13 3/13 7/13 2/13 9/13 1/13 12/13 5/13 6/13 11/13 10/13 &  Criminal Justice 5/13 13/13 8/13 1/13 9/13 4/13 11/13 2/13 12/13 3/13 6/13 7/13 10/13 Indonesia : D New Zealand W ^ ^ < 7/13 12/13 10/13 Thailand Vietnam Eastern Europe and Central Asia &  Albania Bulgaria Croatia  Z &  10/12 9/12 5/12 3/12 1/12 8/12 12/12 2/12 4/12 7/12 6/12 11/12 > ' Powers 6/12 7/12 4/12 3/12 1/12 11/12 10/12 2/12 5/12 9/12 8/12 12/12 & Order and ^ 9/12 10/12 7/12 4/12 1/12 5/12 8/12 2/12 3/12 12/12 11/12 6/12 & & Z 6/12 7/12 5/12 2/12 1/12 9/12 11/12 3/12 4/12 10/12 12/12 8/12 & K ' 9/12 6/12 4/12 3/12 1/12 7/12 12/12 2/12 5/12 10/12 8/12 11/12 & Z  11/12 8/12 6/12 3/12 1/12 4/12 9/12 2/12 7/12 10/12 5/12 12/12 & Access to Civil Justice 10/12 8/12 6/12 2/12 1/12 3/12 11/12 5/12 7/12 9/12 4/12 12/12 &   Justice 10/12 12/12 6/12 1/12 2/12 7/12 11/12 3/12 5/12 4/12 8/12 9/12 Estonia < < Poland Z Z d h Latin America and Caribbean &  Argentina Bolivia  Chile Colombia  El Salvador ' Jamaica Mexico Peru s Z &  8/12 12/12 2/12 1/12 5/12 9/12 4/12 6/12 3/12 10/12 7/12 11/12 > ' Powers 9/12 11/12 3/12 1/12 4/12 8/12 5/12 10/12 6/12 7/12 2/12 12/12 & Order and ^ 9/12 3/12 5/12 1/12 12/12 10/12 2/12 6/12 8/12 7/12 4/12 11/12 & & Z 5/12 11/12 3/12 1/12 8/12 7/12 6/12 9/12 4/12 10/12 2/12 12/12 & K ' 9/12 6/12 5/12 1/12 2/12 8/12 10/12 7/12 12/12 4/12 3/12 11/12 & Z  10/12 11/12 3/12 1/12 4/12 9/12 2/12 8/12 7/12 6/12 5/12 12/12 & Access to Civil Justice 4/12 10/12 2/12 1/12 3/12 7/12 6/12 9/12 5/12 11/12 8/12 12/12 &   Justice 9/12 10/12 5/12 1/12 6/12 4/12 8/12 7/12 2/12 11/12 3/12 12/12 112 .WJP Rule of Law Index Groups by Regions East Asia and Pacific &  Australia Cambodia China .

Data Tables

Middle East and North Africa
& 
Iran Jordan > Morocco h 

& 
3/5 2/5 4/5 5/5 1/5

>

' Powers
5/5 2/5 3/5 4/5 1/5

& Order and ^
5/5 2/5 3/5 4/5 1/5

& & Z
5/5 3/5 1/5 4/5 2/5

& K '
3/5 2/5 5/5 4/5 1/5

& Z 
3/5 2/5 5/5 4/5 1/5

& Access to Civil Justice
3/5 2/5 5/5 4/5 1/5

&   Justice
3/5 2/5 4/5 5/5 1/5

South Asia
& 
Bangladesh India Pakistan

& 
2/3 1/3 3/3

>

' Powers
2/3 1/3 3/3

& Order and ^
1/3 2/3 3/3

& & Z
2/3 1/3 3/3

& K '
2/3 1/3 3/3

& Z 
2/3 1/3 3/3

& Access to Civil Justice
2/3 1/3 3/3

&   Justice
2/3 1/3 3/3

Sub-Saharan Africa
& 
Cameroon  ' < > Nigeria Senegal ^ h

& 
9/9 4/9 3/9 8/9 7/9 5/9 2/9 1/9 6/9

>

' Powers
8/9 9/9 1/9 7/9 4/9 3/9 5/9 2/9 6/9

& Order and ^
2/9 4/9 3/9 5/9 7/9 9/9 1/9 8/9 6/9

& & Z
7/9 9/9 1/9 5/9 4/9 6/9 3/9 2/9 8/9

& K '
7/9 5/9 2/9 8/9 9/9 4/9 6/9 1/9 3/9

& Z 
6/9 7/9 3/9 8/9 9/9 4/9 2/9 1/9 5/9

& Access to Civil Justice
8/9 4/9 2/9 7/9 9/9 3/9 5/9 1/9 6/9

&  Criminal Justice
8/9 6/9 2/9 3/9 9/9 7/9 5/9 1/9 4/9

Western Europe and North America
& 
Austria Belgium Canada & ' / Netherlands E ^ Sweden h h < ^

& 
4/12 8/12 5/12 7/12 6/12 12/12 3/12 2/12 11/12 1/12 9/12 10/12

>

' Powers
6/12 8/12 5/12 9/12 4/12 12/12 3/12 1/12 11/12 2/12 7/12 10/12

& Order and ^
4/12 8/12 3/12 9/12 5/12 12/12 10/12 1/12 11/12 2/12 7/12 6/12

& & Z
4/12 6/12 9/12 10/12 5/12 12/12 3/12 2/12 7/12 1/12 8/12 11/12

& K '
5/12 9/12 4/12 10/12 7/12 12/12 2/12 6/12 11/12 1/12 3/12 8/12

& Z 
6/12 10/12 7/12 8/12 5/12 12/12 3/12 2/12 11/12 1/12 4/12 9/12

& Access to Civil Justice
5/12 6/12 9/12 8/12 2/12 12/12 3/12 1/12 10/12 4/12 7/12 11/12

&  Criminal Justice
4/12 9/12 6/12 12/12 5/12 8/12 2/12 1/12 10/12 3/12 7/12 11/12

113

WJP Rule of Law Index

Groups by Income
High Income
& 
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Croatia  Z

& 
9/23 8/23 15/23 11/23 23/23 22/23 10/23 14/23 12/23 6/23 21/23 5/23 7/23 1/23 3/23 20/23 4/23 19/23 18/23 2/23 13/23 16/23 17/23

>

' Powers
4/23 8/23 12/23 7/23 23/23 19/23 10/23 15/23 6/23

& Order and ^
10/23 8/23 14/23 7/23 22/23 20/23 16/23 15/23 9/23 1/23 23/23 4/23 17/23 11/23 3/23 18/23 2/23 19/23 21/23 5/23 6/23 13/23 12/23

& & Z
7/23 5/23 11/23 14/23 21/23 9/23 8/23 15/23 6/23 20/23 19/23 16/23 3/23 4/23 2/23 10/23 22/23 17/23 12/23 1/23 23/23 13/23 18/23

& K '
8/23 9/23 15/23 6/23 22/23 21/23 13/23 16/23 11/23 5/23 23/23 7/23 3/23 2/23 10/23 20/23 17/23 14/23 19/23 1/23 18/23 4/23 12/23

& Z 
7/23 9/23 17/23 13/23 23/23 21/23 10/23 14/23 8/23 18/23 22/23 4/23 5/23 3/23 2/23 20/23 11/23 16/23 19/23 1/23 12/23 6/23 15/23

& Access to Civil Justice
13/23 8/23 9/23 16/23 22/23 19/23 6/23 14/23 2/23 12/23 23/23 7/23 3/23 4/23 1/23 21/23 15/23 17/23 18/23 5/23 11/23 10/23 20/23

&  Criminal Justice
15/23 8/23 18/23 10/23 23/23 11/23 14/23 22/23 9/23 2/23 16/23 12/23 6/23 3/23 1/23 17/23 5/23 21/23 19/23 7/23 4/23 13/23 20/23

Estonia & ' , / : Netherlands New Zealand E Poland ^ ^ ^ Sweden h h h < ^  < < ^ Z 

14/23 21/23 11/23 5/23 2/23 1/23 13/23 18/23 22/23 17/23 3/23 20/23 9/23 16/23

Upper Middle Income
& 
Albania Argentina  Bulgaria Chile Colombia  Iran Jamaica < > D Mexico Peru Z Z ^ d s Z

& 
19/19 13/19 2/19 16/19 1/19 7/19 15/19 8/19 3/19 11/19 14/19 4/19 17/19 12/19 6/19 10/19 5/19 9/19 18/19

>

' Powers
13/19 12/19 4/19 14/19 1/19 5/19 11/19 17/19 7/19 18/19 8/19 6/19 9/19 2/19 10/19 16/19 3/19 15/19 19/19

& Order and ^
4/19 15/19 12/19 5/19 9/19 19/19 16/19 7/19 14/19 3/19 6/19 1/19 13/19 11/19 2/19 10/19 17/19 8/19 18/19

& & Z
6/19 9/19 4/19 11/19 1/19 12/19 10/19 19/19 8/19 14/19 5/19 18/19 13/19 3/19 2/19 15/19 7/19 17/19 16/19

& K '
15/19 13/19 6/19 8/19 1/19 2/19 9/19 10/19 19/19 12/19 18/19 11/19 5/19 3/19 7/19 16/19 4/19 14/19 17/19

& Z 
15/19 17/19 3/19 13/19 1/19 4/19 16/19 6/19 12/19 7/19 19/19 11/19 8/19 5/19 10/19 14/19 2/19 9/19 18/19

& Access to Civil Justice
14/19 8/19 3/19 11/19 1/19 7/19 12/19 6/19 10/19 4/19 17/19 15/19 18/19 16/19 9/19 13/19 2/19 5/19 19/19

&  Criminal Justice
16/19 15/19 11/19 18/19 2/19 14/19 10/19 9/19 6/19 8/19 12/19 5/19 17/19 7/19 3/19 1/19 4/19 13/19 19/19

114

Data Tables

Lower Middle Income
& 
Bolivia Cameroon China El Salvador ' India Indonesia Jordan Morocco Nigeria Pakistan W Senegal Thailand h Vietnam

& 
14/16 15/16 3/16 4/16 8/16 10/16 9/16 1/16 13/16 11/16 16/16 5/16 7/16 2/16 12/16 6/16

>

' Powers
13/16 15/16 7/16 4/16 12/16 2/16 1/16 6/16 8/16 10/16 14/16 3/16 11/16 9/16 16/16 5/16

& Order and ^
12/16 10/16 2/16 11/16 13/16 15/16 7/16 3/16 5/16 14/16 16/16 9/16 6/16 8/16 4/16 1/16

& & Z
9/16 13/16 16/16 3/16 7/16 4/16 1/16 12/16 14/16 11/16 15/16 6/16 5/16 2/16 8/16 10/16

& K '
5/16 15/16 2/16 10/16 6/16 1/16 3/16 4/16 11/16 13/16 16/16 9/16 14/16 8/16 12/16 7/16

& Z 
12/16 14/16 8/16 2/16 9/16 13/16 3/16 1/16 10/16 11/16 15/16 5/16 6/16 4/16 16/16 7/16

& Access to Civil Justice
12/16 14/16 6/16 3/16 10/16 8/16 4/16 1/16 7/16 2/16 16/16 13/16 5/16 11/16 15/16 9/16

&  Criminal Justice
16/16 13/16 2/16 12/16 9/16 6/16 3/16 4/16 14/16 11/16 15/16 8/16 7/16 1/16 10/16 5/16

Low Income
& 
Bangladesh Cambodia  ' < < > h

& 
4/8 8/8 2/8 1/8 7/8 5/8 6/8 3/8

>

' Powers
3/8 8/8 7/8 1/8 6/8 5/8 2/8 4/8

& Order and ^
3/8 2/8 5/8 4/8 6/8 1/8 8/8 7/8

& & Z
3/8 7/8 8/8 1/8 5/8 4/8 2/8 6/8

& K '
3/8 6/8 5/8 1/8 7/8 4/8 8/8 2/8

& Z 
4/8 7/8 5/8 1/8 6/8 2/8 8/8 3/8

& Access to Civil Justice
6/8 7/8 2/8 1/8 5/8 4/8 8/8 3/8

&  Criminal Justice
2/8 6/8 5/8 1/8 3/8 7/8 8/8 4/8

115

These questions are then administered to a representative sample of the general public.Data Notes Data Notes The WJP Rule of Law Index provides new indicators on nine factors and 52 sub-factors. Examples of inputs include a country’s number of courts. and then are analyzed and cross-checked pursuant to a rigorous triangulation methodology. The 2011 Rule of Law Index builds on more than 400 variables drawn from the assessments of more than 66.000 people and 2. These factors and sub-factors correspond to goals or outcomes that rule of law societies seek to achieve and that policy makers might want to influence. police resources are just one of the many inputs of effective policing (an outcome). our aim is to provide a picture of where countries stand with regard to a number of widely accepted outcomes that rule of law societies seek to achieve. Measuring outcomes improves accuracy while reducing the risk of misdiagnosing the causes of problems and bottlenecks. and to local experts.000 local experts in 66 countries. inputs The WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 measures outcomes rather than inputs. such as the legal and regulatory frameworks. absence of corruption. Outcomes vs. and judicial budget. to attain them. For instance. as opposed to the institutional means. The WJP Rule of Law Index is a first attempt to systematically and comprehensively quantify these outcomes by linking the conceptual definitions to concrete questions. More specifically. number of police officers. and it may or may not be the 117 . and access to justice. Some examples of outcomes measured by the Index include respect for fundamental rights. The outcome of this exercise is one of the world’s most comprehensive data sets of the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice.

In addition. the extent of corruption. The poll was carried out on a probability sample of 1. three different polling methodologies were used: CATI. socio-demographic information was also collected.WJP Rule of Law Index driving reason behind crime rates. the police. The GPP questionnaire was designed to provide information on the experiences and the 118 . The questionnaires include closeended perception questions and several hypothetical scenarios with highly detailed factual assumptions aimed at ensuring comparability across countries. Since the Index does not contain all the elements to diagnose the root causes of the country’s rule of law weaknesses. The expert questionnaires were tailored to four areas of expertise: civil and commercial law. they were collected in April 2011. law on the books In order to evaluate the rule of law in a given country.000 respondents drawn from the three largest cities in each country. Currently. criminal justice (due process). Qualified respondents’ questionnaires (QRQ) completed by in-country experts in civil and commercial law. The Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaire (QRQ) is designed to complement polling data with expert opinion on a variety of dimensions relevant to the rule of law. Once a sufficient number of potential respondents are identified. The latest questionnaire includes 91 perception-based questions and 58 experience-based questions. and will be incorporated in the Index’s spin-off products which will complement the Index framework and provide a solid basis for policy analysis and discussion. it is necessary to look not only at the laws as written (de jure). research organizations. and public health. the openness and accountability of the State. the polling company. The WJP Rule of Law Index addresses this gap by constructing a new set of indicators drawn from two novel data sources: » A general population poll (GPP) conducted by leading local polling companies using a probability sample of 1.000 respondents in the three largest cities of each country. questionnaires are sent to the selected individuals. For the second round. The first method involves a two-stage procedure. including marginalized segments of the society. Relevant inputs will continue to be captured by the methodology. The cities covered. perceptions of ordinary people about their dealings with the government. but also at how they are actually implemented in practice and experienced by those who are subject to them (de facto). labor law. Depending on the particular situation of each country. In all countries. there is no comparable data that fully covers all dimensions of the rule of law. and the courts. criminal justice. labor law. and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In the second stage. in the end. Unlike other indices. we focus on outcomes which. a random sample of experts is drawn from within the selected organizations. but are tailored to suit the knowledge and expertise of each type of respondent. The second method builds on the WJP network of practitioners and academics. data were gathered in September 2009. the WJP Rule of Law Index methodology focuses entirely on adherence to the rule of law in practice. and the polling methodology employed in all 66 countries are presented in Table 4. and was conducted by leading local polling companies on behalf of the World Justice Project. » The general population poll (GPP) is a key component of the Index as it provides information on how the rule of law is experienced by the people. Qualified respondents are selected based solely on their professional expertise by using two methods. or F2F. universities/colleges. In the first stage.people who Law in practice vs. as they are essential for policy analysis. are the goals policy makers want to address. Online. For the first round of countries. a large number of organizations are selected from a set of directories of law firms. A new data set The WJP’s Rule of Law Index is based on the premise that it is necessary to use different but complementary data sources to best approximate the concept of the rule of law. and the magnitude of common crimes to which the general public is exposed. the questionnaire was translated into local languages and adapted to common expressions. and public health. The questionnaires cover different aspects of the majority of factors.

< D  < : ^  d D / Z D E < W ^ d d z K  / ^ Nairobi. Montreal. Novosibirsk Dakar. Davao. Djalalabd  d ^ Monrovia < > / :  D  ' D  Z & Z ' Auckland. Sharjah. Valencia ^ ' D  E W < / / < t D < <  Dubai. Z >d ^ < ZKD/Z . Christchurch. Bergen. Vancouver ^ s   ^ ' Bogota. Z >d &  D Z t:W IBI Partners  / ^ s t:W Z DD IBI Partners d ^ ' ^ ^ ^ / >> ^  D Z /W^K^ WKzK K D ^ IBI Partners ^ W ^ ^Z> ZKD/Z . Diourbel ^ :  d  Seoul. Bamenda Toronto. W W  D & & CATI KE>/E KE>/E & & KE>/E & & D  d/ & & & & & & KE>/E CATI & & CATI CATI KE>/E & & & & KE>/E & & KE>/E KE>/E & & & & & & & & & & & & KE>/E & & CATI & & & & & & & & & & & & & & CATI & & KE>/E CATI & & KE>/E & & & & & & & & & & & & & & CATI & & KE>/E KE>/E KE>/E & & & & & & & & & & KE>/E KE>/E & & & & ^ 1096 1000 1030 1000 1000 1000 1003 850 1024 1006 1000 1047 850 1006 1009 1006 1001 1000 1020 1000 1019 1000 1002 1006 1000 1006 1004 1067 1097 1000 1000 1000 1011 1000 1012 1000 1001 1000 1006 1057 1000 1004 1006 1001 1005 1000 1009 1000 1000 1000 1000 1024 1000 1000 1000 1018 1003 1000 1000 1000 1010 1011 1001 1044 1000 1000 Data Collection Year 2009 2009 2009 2009 2011 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2011 2009 2011 2011 2009 2009 2011 2009 2009 2011 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2011 2009 2009 2011 2011 2011 2009 2009 2011 2009 2011 2011 2009 2011 2009 2009 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2009 2009 2009 2011 2011 2011 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 ^  ^ W ' E D Z /W^K^ W W > Market Institut K Y Z > ^ ^ / >>   & Z Z / Z > /> > D & Z t:W Centro Nacional de Consultoria (CNC) W D D W K ^ ^ / >> Z ' /  ^ ^ / >> Z ^ > > D ^ ^ / >> d ^ ' ^ dE^  d ^ IBI Partners . Mek'ele W D >  . Yaoundé. Incheon Madrid. Trondheim < > & > d Manila. Ostrava ' ^  ^  ^ ^ ^ ^ Tallinn. Elbasan   Z ^ D  t ' >   <  ' > W ^   ^ W Z :  . D < d '  D s E . Cluj Moscow. Dire Dawa. Barquisimeto .  D  . Thies. Narva Addis Ababa. Saint Petersburg. Barcelona. Abu-Dhabi >  ' E z >  Caracas. Wellington > < / Oslo. E . Mombasa. Z >d dE^ ZD^ ^ IBI Partners Y Z ^ E Z  / > D EKZ^d d IBI Partners Thailand z Z  > ^ > < / / ^ > &  D Z ^ ^ / >> ^ ^ / >> t:W / Z > & & 119 . Cebu t  > Bucharest. Brno.Data Notes Table 4: City coverage and polling methodology in the 66 indexed countries  Albania Argentina Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Bolivia  Bulgaria Cambodia Cameroon Canada Chile China Colombia Croatia  Z  Z El Salvador Estonia  & ' ' ' . Osh. Busan. Cali  ^ Z Prague. d /DZ ^ / &  D Z ^ ^ / >> ^ D ' IBI Partners t:W ZKD/Z . Durres. Tartu. Maracaibo. Iasi. ^ W s W W  <  Douala. Nakuru Bishkek. < ^ Z  India Indonesia Iran / Jamaica : Jordan < < < > > D Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria E Pakistan Peru W Poland Z Z Senegal ^ ^ ^ < ^ Sweden Thailand d h h h  h < h ^ s Vietnam Cities Covered Tirana. Medellin.

it is possible to create composite indicators that better capture the reality of a complex concept. For instance. actors. By combining a series of questions. public health. First. The Index thus incorporates a series of 33 questions falling under different regulatory areas. the data will 1 Composite indicators are subject to several sources of uncertainty.the first is to complement the information provided by the experts’ assessments (specialized knowledge of certain processes. Data validation and cross-checks Another distinguishing feature of the WJP’s Rule of Law Index is that it approaches the measurement of rule of law from various angles so as to improve the validity and reliability of the resultant scores . that 90 percent of the countries show a shift of less than ±1 position. with each reflecting different aspects of a particular concept.2 measures whether government regulations are applied and enforced without the exercise of bribery or improper influence. they might not comprehend factors such as crime in different neighborhoods. This approach not only enables accounting for different perspectives on the rule of law. In all cases. The Rule of Law Index triangulates information across data sources and also across types of questions. Their analysis has demonstrated the robustness of our findings. the base level of aggregation for each sub-factor is calculated with a weight of 50% for the QRQ variables. M and Saltelli. the Index anchors expert opinion on rigorous polling of the general public to ensure that the findings reflect the conditions experienced by the population. Building indicators All variables included in the Rule of Law Index were normalized using the Min-Max method. or aggregation rules. to mention just a few. A. In addition. . so that all variables are expressed in a scale from 0 (low rule of law) to 1 (high rule of law). including sampling error. it is clear that no single question can adequately encompass this concept. the Index employs both a qualitative and quantitative methodology for cross-checking its findings in order to identify discrepancies between the Index and other data sources. public registries. the WJP’s Rule of Law Index measures each of the concepts with several variables. the Index combines more than 400 detailed questions to measure the concepts represented in the different sub-factors of the WJP’s Rule of Law Index. while experts are familiar with the duration of cases in courts. Individual variables covering the same concept were averaged and then aggregated into sub-factors and factors using simple averages. The intent in using these two data sources is twofold . weighting. Given the large number of regulations emerging from different governmental bodies in each country. In this way. such as the rule of law. missing data. which is a problem experienced on a daily basis by the general public. sub-factor 6. bootstrapping. The Index is thus based on data from experts and data from the general public.a method known as triangulation. The underlying concept is that experts and lay people are knowledgeable about different rule of law situations. With all this information. and procurement. Overall. To assess the impact of such uncertainties on our estimates. For instance. Combining several questions to measure a complex concept No single question can cover all of the dimensions of the concepts described by the different factors and sub-factors. (2010)]. and multi-modeling approaches [Saisana. The second goal is to validate our findings by providing different perspectives on the same issue (see Data validation and cross-checks section below). we create 120 Limitations With the aforementioned methodological strengths come a number of limitations. i. including marginalized sectors of society. but it also helps to reduce possible bias that might be introduced by any one particular data collection method. therefore. we asked the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission to perform a sensitivity analysis based a combination of Monte Carlo experiments.WJP Rule of Law Index have provided significant input to the development of the Index. These scores are the basis of the final rankings. education.. a composite measure that conveys more precisely the extent of bribery and corruption in regulatory implementation. and 50% for the GPP variables1.e. Data collection was conducted from March 2011 through May 2011. such as labor. normalization. and circumstances) with that of the general public (different rule of law problems as experienced by the people). environment.

Second. Thus.Data Notes shed light on rule of law dimensions that appear comparatively strong or weak. it will be necessary to use the Index in combination with other analytical tools to provide a full picture of causes and possible solutions. but will not be specific enough to establish causation. and eventually to rural areas as well. A. (2011) “Measuring the Rule of Law”. the methodology has been applied only in three major urban areas in each of the indexed countries. As the project evolves. J and Ponce. 1. including a description of the more than 400 variables used to construct the Index scores.worldjusticeproject. are available in Botero. WJP Working Paper No. Other methodological considerations A detailed presentation of the methodology. the WJP intends to extend the application of the methodology to other urban areas.org 121 . available online at www.

Part III: Statistical Tests on the WJP Rule of Law Index .

Italy) Summary d  :Z t:W Z > / The assessment of conceptual and statistical coherence of the World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index and the estimation of the impact of modeling assumptions on a country’s performance are useful steps: they add to the transparency and reliability of the Index and build confidence in the narratives supported by the measure. The Econometrics and Applied Statistics Unit at the European Commission Joint Research Centre in Ispra. a thorough statistical assessment of the Index. Modeling the cultural and subjective concepts underlying the rule of law at a national scale around the globe raises practical challenges related to the combination of these concepts into a single set of numbers. and upon request of the WJP.1 The WJP Rule of Law Index was assessed along two main avenues: the conceptual and statistical coherence of its structure.Statistical Tests on the WJP Rule of Law Index Statistical Tests on the WJP Rule of Law Index MICHAELA SAISANA and ANDREA SALTELLI European Commission Joint Research Centre (Ispra. and the impact of key modeling assumptions on its scores and ranks. 125 . Italy has undertaken for a second consecutive year.

WJP Rule of Law Index Conceptual and statistical coherence in the WJP Rule of Law framework Country data delivered to the JRC represented average scores of public or expert opinion on 479 variables. Some reservations on Civil conflict is effectively limited (sub-factor 3. our analysis answers the question: ‘are the sub-factors really equally important?’ We used an ‘importance measure’ (henceforth Si). F.2) are discussed later.2: Absence of Corruption. as the WJP team aims to shed more light on the dimensions of the rule of law as opposed to an overall index. might discourage countries from reporting low data values. A more detailed analysis of the correlation structure confirms the expectation that the sub-factors are more correlated to their own dimension than to any other dimension and all correlations are strong and positive. Hence. for reasons of transparency and replicability. In the present context given that all dimensions are built as simple arithmetic averages (i. F. F. A further data quality issue relates to the treatment of missing values. The 2011 dataset is characterized by excellent data coverage (92% in a matrix of 479 variables × 66 countries). equal weights for the relative sub-factors).6: Effective Regulatory Enforcement. (3) Sub-factors that have much lower contribution to the variance of the relevant Factor scores than the equal weighting expectation are marked with an asterisk. This latter result could be used as a statistical justification for aggregating further the eight dimensions into a single index by using a weighted arithmetic average. The Si describes ‘the expected reduction in the variance of factor scores that would be Table 1.8: Effective Criminal Justice K2 126 . F. calculated sub-factor scores using only available information for each country.. 2008).7: Access to Civil Justice. This choice.e. Finally. This is not currently done. We tested the implications of ‘no imputation’ versus the hot-deck imputation method and discuss this in the second part of the assessment together with other modeling assumptions. F. These variables are not affected by outliers or skewed distributions2.4: Fundamental Rights.3: Order and Security. WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 Notes: (1) Numbers represent the kernel estimates of the Pearson correlation ratio ( ). tests focused on identifying whether the eight dimensions of the WJP Rule of Law Index are statistically well-balanced in the underlying sub-factors. Next. (2) Bootstrap confidence intervals are given in parenthesis. (4) F. which is common in relevant contexts. no-reallocation of sub-factors is needed. Data coverage per dimension and country is also very good or excellent. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to assess to what extent the conceptual framework is confirmed by statistical approaches and to identify eventual pitfalls.5: Open Government. known as correlation ratio or first order sensitivity measure (Saltelli et al. F. except for 16 variables spread across six factors in the WJP Rule of Law Index.1: Limited Government Powers. the eight factors share a single latent factor that captures 82% of the total variance. as within each of the eight dimensions the first latent factor captures between 55% up to 93% of the variance (best result for Absence of Corruption – Factor 2). Importance measures (variance-based) for the eight factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index ^ & & & & & & & & Source: European Commission Joint Research Centre. The WJP. the skewed distributions of those variables do not bias the results. The analysis confirms the WJP Rule of Law Index structure. F.3 Given the high number of variables combined in building a factor.

sub-factor 3.2 to become as important as the other two for the entire set of countries. check control of potential outliers and eventual errors and typos were corrected during this phase. Yet. randomly sampled from uniform continuous distributions centered in the reference values. subfactor 3. driven by statistical analysis or the need for ease of communication. 7. limit values of uncertainty intervals have been defined as shown in Table 2. each corresponding to a different set of weights of the sub-factors underlying each dimension. 2011. The reason is that 52 out of 66 countries do have civil conflict effectively limited and hence they all receive a score of 1. 1 (in that case all Si values will be between 0. This type of assessment aims to respond to eventual criticism that the country scores associated with aggregate measures are generally not calculated under conditions of certainty. Results are reassuring: all sub-factors are important in classifying countries within each factor. even if they are frequently presented as such (Saisana et al.2 has no discriminating power over those countries.60 and 0. The multi-modeling approach involved combinations of the remaining two key assumptions on the ‘no imputation’ of missing data and the aggregation formula within a factor. The WJP calculated sub-factor scores using only available information for each country4. though some sub-factors are slightly more important than others (see Table 1).2 (civil conflict is effectively limited) is half as important as the other two. As discussed in Paruolo et al.5.2.7 compared to the remaining sub-factors on the basis of their lower effective weight. We have dealt with these uncertainties simultaneously in order to assess their joint influence and fully acknowledge their implications. for the Access to Civil Justice. the variables included.. Some of these choices are based on expert opinion. Hence. among other elements. the estimation or not of missing values. Combined with the 1. the original weights should be changed from 1. The issue is somewhat more serious for Order and Security where sub-factor 3. However. decision-theory practitioners have challenged this type of aggregation because of inherent theoretical inconsistencies lined to their fully compensatory nature.2 becomes important and placed on equal footing with the other two subfactors when it comes to the remaining 14 countries where civil conflicts exist. thus if sub-factors are supposed to be equally important their Si values should not differ too much.0 in this sub-factor. we can take this as a measure of importance. The choice of the range for the weights’ variation was driven by two opposite needs: on the one hand. which is a partially compensatory approach.000 runs. Consequently. Data are considered to be errorfree since the WJP team already undertook a double- . and the aggregation method.1.3 and 7. one could question the contribution of sub-factors 7. the need to respect the rationale of the WJP that the subfactors are equally important when calculating a dimension.000 127 Impact of modeling assumptions on the WJP Rule of Law Index results Every dimension in the WJP Rule of Law Index is the outcome of choices: the framework (driven by theoretical models and expert opinion).Statistical Tests on the WJP Rule of Law Index obtained if a given sub-factor could be fixed’.1. the need to ensure a wide enough interval to have meaningful robustness checks. or common practice. The aim of the robustness analysis is to assess to what extent these choices might affect country classification. The robustness assessment of the WJP Rule of Law Index was based on a combination of a Monte Carlo experiment and a multi-modeling approach.6 Consequently. 2005.70). This choice (often termed as ‘no imputation’) was confronted with the application of the hot-deck imputation method5. The Monte Carlo simulation related to the weights and comprised 1.. In order for sub-factor 3. Given these considerations. Regarding the WJP assumption on the aggregation function (arithmetic average). 2011). we considered the geometric average instead. in which a comparative advantage of a few variables can compensate a comparative disadvantage of many variables. we tested four models based on the combination of no imputation versus hot-deck and arithmetic versus geometric average. 2. the normalization of the variables. the weights assigned to the variables and sub-factors. to 1. on the other hand. and despite the fact that it received statistical support (see principal component analysis results in the previous section).

2.5).4) and Effective Regulatory Enforcement (F. for each country.7) and Effective Criminal Justice (F.WJP Rule of Law Index Table 2. Absence of Corruption (F. weighting and aggregation formula are flagged. Uncertainties simulated in the WJP Rule of Law Index / h Reference method Alternative method hot-deck h // h WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 & & & & & & & & > K & K   '  ^ Z ' Z   : :  W Z /// h Z arithmetic average Source: European Commission Joint Research Centre. one of the least robust dimensions).2). the dot being the simulated median rank. The main results of the robustness analysis are provided in Figure 1.3) and Open Government (F.8). Error bars represent. simulations per model to account for the uncertainty in the weights across the sub-factors. WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 D Z t:W & Z 1 11 & D Z t:W & Z ^ 21 31  Vietnam Iran Morocco 41 51 61 Countries ' Notes: Countries with wide intervals –more than 10 positions– across 4. Fundamental Rights (F. The fact Figure 1: Robustness analysis (WJP factor ranks vs. 90% intervals) 1 11 & 21 31 41 ' 51 K 61 Countries Source: European Commission Joint Research Centre. WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 Alternative method geometric average Notes: Number of sub-factors underlying each factor are given in parenthesis. Countries are ordered from best to worst according to their reference rank in the WJP (black line). 128 . which shows median ranks and 90% intervals computed across the 4.5. less than r 3 positions in Order and Security (F.1). one of the most robust dimensions) and for Open Government (F. median rank. we carried out altogether 4.6). the 90% interval across all simulations. Ranks in all eight factors are very robust to the modeling assumptions: 90 percent of the countries shift with respect to the simulated median less than r 1 position in Limited Government Powers (F.000 simulations related to estimation of missing data.000 Monte Carlo simulations for Absence of Corruption (F. less than r 2 positions in Access to Civil Justice (F.000 simulations.

they have been flagged herein as part of the sensitivity analysis in order to give more transparency in the entire process and to help appreciate the WJP Rule of Law Index results with respect to the assumptions made during the development phase. J. 5 The ‘hot-deck method’ (also termed ‘nearest neighbour method’) involves substituting missing values for a given country with available data from ‘similar’ countries. the JRC analysis suggests that the conceptualized multi-level structure of the WJP Rule of Law Index is statistically coherent and none of the eight dimensions is dominated by any of its underlying sub-factors. 6 In the geometric average. Jamaica on F. References Groeneveld. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. F. The Statistician 33: 391–99. Campolongo. Saisana. to describe perception of corruption in the public sector and among politicians. Little.. B. 2nd edition. Although these few cases are not a worrisome concern in the context of rule of law. OECD/EC JRC.ec. The skewness criterion was relaxed to ‘above 2’ to account for the small sample (66 countries). S.. eu/ 2 Groeneveld and Meeden (1984) set the criteria for absolute skewness above 1 and kurtosis above 3. Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Techniques as Tools for the Analysis and Validation of Composite Indicators. Meeden. Research Policy 40: 165–77. few countries have relatively wide intervals (roughly 10-16 positions): China and Liberia on F... Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. 4 Note that here ‘no imputation’ is equivalent to replacing missing values with the average of the available data within each sub-factor. 129 . 2002.Statistical Tests on the WJP Rule of Law Index that Absence of Corruption (F. sub-factors are multiplied as opposed to summed in the arithmetic average.. 2011. Saltelli. M. Gatelli. A. The JRC auditing studies of composite indicators are available at http://composite-indicators. Chichester. R. Hoboken. 2011). Iran. R. Bangladesh on F.europa. Saisana. A. P. Measuring skewness and kurtosis. England: John Wiley & Sons. Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy. Sub-factor weights appear as exponents in the multiplication. Saisana.2. A. 1 The JRC analysis was based on the recommendations of the OECD (2008) Handbook on Composite Indicators. Overall. Ratto. J.2) is one of the most robust dimensions in the WJP Rule of Law Index with respect to modeling assumptions and also very coherent (as discussed in the previous section) is all the more noteworthy given its potential inclusion in the Corruption Perception Index of Transparency International. after cross-validation. Ghana on F. S. M. Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer. weighting or aggregation rule (less than r1 position shift in 90% of the cases). 2008. A. Rickety Numbers: Volatility of University Rankings and Policy Implications.. Morocco. 2008.. Paruolo.. For the WJP factors. Saltelli.. Rubin.1. D’Hombres. NJ: John Wiley & Sons...6.000 Monte Carlo runs are narrow enough for most countries (less than 4 positions in 75% of the cases) to allow for meaningful inferences to be drawn. 2008. we selected Manhattan distance and three nearest neighbours. A. M. 2005. Tarantola.7 or F.8. Singapore and Vietnam on F. and on more recent research from the JRC. D. T. 3 In the WJP Rule of Law Index.jrc. G. A. M.... Simulated 90% intervals across 4.. D. Saltelli.3. Saisana. Munda. Andres. Tarantola.. These relatively wide intervals are due to compensation of low performance on some sub-factors with a very good performance on other sub-factors in a given dimension (see country profiles in the main part of the report). 1984. Exceptionally. G. Paris: OECD. Country ranks across the eight dimensions are also fairly robust to methodological changes related to the estimation of missing data. and no country on F. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.4. M. similarity being measured by a certain distance (Little and Rubin. Singapore on F. B.5. Saltelli. ‘factors’ are equivalent to dimensions and ‘sub-factors’ to sub-dimensions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 168 (2):307–323. 2002). Cariboni. Ratings and rankings: Voodoo or Science? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A (submitted.5.

Part IV: Contributing Experts .

and the thousands of individuals who have responded to the general population poll (GPP) around the world.Contributing Experts Contributing Experts The Rule of Law Index 2011 was made possible by generous pro-bono contribution of academics and practitioners who contributed their time and expertise. The names of those experts wishing to be acknowledged individually are listed in the following pages. This report was also made possible by the work of the polling companies who conducted fieldwork. 133 .

Memi & Hoxha Ilir Johollari Hoxha. Hôpital Erasme Patrick Goffaux Université Libre de Bruxelles. Faculté de Droit Kris Wauters Université Catholique de Louvain Anonymous Contributors 134 . Queensland University of Technology Belgium J. Mirza Farzana Iqbal Chowdhury Daffodil International University Olivier De Witte Université Libre de Bruxelles. Isabelle Pellech.A. M. Memi & Hoxha Blerta Nesho Pellumb Pipero Ministry of Health Artila Rama Boga & Associates Klodian Rjepaj Genci Terpo Albanian Human Rights Group Gerhard Velaj Boga & Associates Anonymous Contributors Guillermo Jorge Guillermo Jorge & Asociados Santiago Legarre Universidad Católica Argentina Andres Mariano Ruiz Gabriel Martoglio Martoglio & Asociados Maria Eugenia Montero Hewlett-Packard Rosa Maria Oller López Estudio Jurídico Oller López & Asoc Diego Silva Ortiz Silva Ortiz.WJP Rule of Law Index Albania Jona Bica Kalo & Associates Dorant Ekmekçiu Hoxha. Hartnell Atanaskovic Hartnell Jack Keating University of Melbourne Adam McBeth Faculty of Law. Alfonso. Kamal Hossain & Associates Ali Asif Khan Hossain & Khan Associates Saira Rahman Khan BRAC University Shusmita Khan Eminence Al Amin Rahman FM Associates Mir Shamsur Rahman The University of Asia Pacific K. National Centre for Indigenous Studies Patrick Emerton Monash University Simon Evans Thomas Faunce Australian National University James FitzSimons Andrew Frazer University of Wollongong Jeffrey Fuller Flinders University T. Rechtsanwältin Martin Reinisch Brauneis Klauser Prandl Rechtsanwalte GmbH Martin Risak University of Vienna David Schnaiter Australia Steven Bennett Blake Dawson Sean Cooney Melbourne Law School Nicholas Cowdery AM QC Sydney Institute of Criminology Breen Creighton RMIT University Lynda Crowley-Cyr James Cook University School of Law Michael Dodson Australian National University. UP Paola Bergallo Universidad de San Andrés Marcelo Bombau Federico A. Sayeed United Hospital Anonymous Contributors Austria Arpad Gered BMA Brandstätter Rechtsanwälte GmbH Gesundheit Österreich Thomas Hofmann PALLAS Rechtsanwaelte Partnerschaft Greiter Ivo Greiter Pegger Koffler & Partners Robert Kert University of Vienna Katharina Koerber-Risak Karasek Wietrzyk Attorneys-at-Law Christoph Konrath Isabelle Pellech Mag. Hernán Jorge Danzi Gladys Karina De Bella Hospital de Niños Ricardo Gutierrez Roberto Durrieu Estudio Durrieu Abogados SC Omar Eidelstein LKEC Gonzalo Hernandez M. University of Melbourne Greg Taylor Monash University Anonymous Contributors Ghulam Mustafa Dulal Gonoshasthaya Kendra Debra Efroymson HealthBridge S. Memi & Hoxha Sokol Elmazaj Boga & Associates Roshi Enver Emel Haxhillari Kalo & Associates Eris Hoxha Hoxha.A. Acolty Philippe & Partners Eva Brems Ghent University A.R. Pavic & Louge Abogados Anonymous Contributors Angus McKenzie PostSuper Pty Ltd Simon Rice Australian National University. Memi & Hoxha Oljion Kaso Rokas Andi Memi Hoxha. Claes De Broeck Van Laere & Partners Daniel Cuypers University of Antwerp Pierre d’Argent University of Louvain Jan De Greef Argentina Valeria Amelong Fernando Basch UBA.M. & M. Shajedul Haque Eminence Bilqis Amin Hoque Environment and Population Research Centre (EPRC) Mohammed Mutahar Hossain Hossain & Khan Associates Barristaer Kamruzzaman Daffodil International University Department of Law Syed Kamruzzaman Dr. College of Law Cheryl Saunders Melbourne Law School. Bomchil Jernej Sekolec London Court of International Arbitration Doris Wydra Salzburg Centre of European Union Studies Anonymous Contributors Marie-Sophie Devresse Université Catholique de Louvain Bangladesh ASM Alamgir WHO Abdul Awal Kazi Faizul Bari K. BARI & CO. Borzi Cirilli Defensas Penales Hernán Jorge Danzi Estudio Jurídico Penal Dr. Monash University Fiona McDonald School of Law. LL.

Contributing Experts

Bolivia
Adrian Barrenechea B. Criales, Urcullo & Antezana, Abogados, Soc. Civ. Cesar Burgoa Rodríguez Bufete Burgoa William Herrera Añez Estudio Jurídico Alex Linares Sanjinés & Asociados Soc. Civil Abogados Ivan Lima Magne Lima Asociados Consultores S.A. Miguel Ángel Sandoval Parada Indacochea & Asociados, Abogados Rodolfo Raoul Sanjinas Elizagoyen Sanjinas & Asociados Soc. Civ. Abogados Victor Vargas Herrera & Abogados Mario Zapata Anonymous Contributors

Fabio Di Jorge Peixoto e Cury Advogados José Ricardo dos Santos Luz Júnior Duarte Garcia, Caselli Guimarães e Terra Advogados Virgílio Afonso da Silva University of São Paulo Alexandre Esper Microsoft Heloisa Estellita Fundação Getúlio Vargas Law School Joaquim de Arruda Falcão Neto Fundação Getúlio Vargas Law School Mauricio Faragone Faragone Advogados Luciano Feldens Zenkner Schmidt, Poeta & Feldens Advogados Associados Boriska Ferreira Rocha Cunha Ferreira Advogados Marcela Cristina Fogaça Vieira Conectas Direitos Humanos Isabel Franco Koury Lopes Advogados Iliana Graber De Aquino Carlos Emmanuel Joppert Ragazzo Fundação Getúlio Vargas Levy & Salomão Advogados Maira Rocha Machado

Amadeu Ribeiro Mattos Filho Advogados Paulo Sergio João Pontificia Universidade Catolica de São Paulo/ Fundação Getúlio Vargas Elival da Silva Ramos São Paulo University Law School Augusto Simoes Cunha Cunha Ferreira Advogados Fernando Smith Fabris Freitas Macedo & Dalcin Law Firm Eduardo Soto Pires Veirano Attorneys-at-Law Rodrigo de Souza Costa Benny Spiewak Gustavo Swenson Caetano Mariana Tavares de Araujo Levy & Salomão Advogados Denise Vaz Moraes Pitombo Advogados Maurício Vedovato Lilla, Huck, Otranto, Camargo Advogados Teresa Wambier Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo Anonymous Contributors

Neli Nedkova Wolf Theiss Veselka Petrova Tsvetkova Bebov & Partners Lachezar Raichev Penkov, Markov & Partners Petko Salchev Department of Social Medicine and Health Care Management - Medical University of Sofia Atanas Slavov Bulgarian Center for Not-for-Profit Law S. Stanislav Irina Stoeva Stoeva, Kuyumdjieva &Vitliemov Ivaylo Uzunov Nikolay Yanev Cerha Hempel Spiegelfeld Hlawati (CHSH) Anonymous Contributors

Cambodia
Sherazade Delhoume Legal Support for Children and Women Kem Ley Advance Research Consultant Team Anonymous Contributors

Brazil
Pedro Abramovay Fundação Getúlio Vargas Teresa Ancona Lopez University of São Paulo, Faculty of Law José Manoel de Arruda Alvim Netto Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo Felipe Asensi FGV Maria Celina Bodin de Moraes Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro Rogério Carmona Bianco Lilla, Huck, Otranto, Camargo Advogados Thiago Bottino Fundação Getúlio Vargas Law School Julio Cesar Bueno Pinheiro Neto Advogados Daniel Bushatsky Advocacia Bushatsky Vivian Calderoni Conectas Human Rights Mario de Barros Duarte Garcia Duarte Garcia, Caselli Guimarães e Terra Advogados

Bulgaria
Pavleta Alexieva Bulgarian Center for Not-for-Profit Law J. Crombois American University in Bulgaria Velichka Dzhambazova Ralchevi Stanev Dzhambazova Boyko Guerginov Cerha Hempel Spiegelfeld Hlawati (CHSH) Nikolai Hristov Medical University of Sofia Gergana Ilieva Kolcheva, Smilenov, Koev and Partners Dimitar Ivanov Dimitrov Ivanov & Partners Vladimir Ivanov VIP Consult Ilya Komarevski Tsvetkova Bebov and Partners Marina Nenova Medical University of Varna

Antenor Madruga Barbosa, Müssnich & Aragão Advogados Sergio Nelson Mannheimer Andrade & Fichtner Advogados Edson Mazieiro Paulo Roberto Murray Law Firm Alberto Mori Trench, Rossi & Watanabe Daniela Muradas Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) Luiz Paulo Pieruccetti Marques Vieira, Rezende, Barbosa e Guerreiro Advogados Fabio Peixinho Gomes Correa Lilla, Huck, Otranto e Camargo Advogados Maria Fernanda T. Peres University of São Paulo Miguel Reale Júnior University of São Paulo Faculty of Law

Cameroon
Angoh Angoh Legal Power Law Firm Feh Henry Baaboh Henry Samuelson & Co. Ndi Nelly Kahndi Jing & Partners Monny Lobe Faculty of Medicine, Université de Yaoundé I Tanyi Joseph Mbi Tanyi Mbi &Partners Valentine N. Ndikum Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Université de Yaoundé I Tayou Tagny Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Université de Yaoundé I Anonymous Contributors

135

WJP Rule of Law Index

Canada
David Asper University of Manitoba, Faculty of Law Carol Aylward Dalhousie University Bob Barnetson Athabasca University Karen Busby University of Manitoba, Faculty of Law Daniel M. Campbell QC Cox & Palmer Karen Campbell Cox & Palmer Jason Foster Athabasca University Fabien Gélinas McGill University William H. Goodridge Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Elise Groulx International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association Chuck Harrison Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP Jula Hughes University of New Brunswick Gary Kobinger Public Health Agency of Canada Hoi Kong McGill University Marc Laporta John N. Lavis McMaster University Louis Letellier de St-Just Katherine Lippel University of Ottawa Glen Luther University of Saskatchewan, College of Law Constance MacIntosh Schulich School of Law Dwight Newman University of Saskatchewan Darrel Pink Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society Richard Perras Cordeau Pare Meunier Caroline Potvin Pharmacists without Borders Heather Raven

Gaynor Roger Shibley Righton LLP Barbara Von Tigerstrom University of Saskatchewan, College of Law Anonymous Contributors

China
Liu Kaiming The Institute of Contemporary Observation Apo Leong Asia Monitor Resource Centre He-Qingjie Jia Ping China Global Fund Watch Initiative Fen Shao Legal Clinic for Labor, Yunnan University Zhang Wanhong Public Interest and Development Law Institute, Wuhan University Anonymous Contributors

Croatia
Boris Bakota Faculty of Law in Osijek Ivana Dominković Bardek, Lisac, Musec, Skoko, Sarolic d.o.o. in cooperation with CMS Kristijan Grdjan UN Theme Group on HIV/ AIDS - UNDP Croatia Iva Jovovic Darko Jurisic General Hospital Dr. J. Bencevic Ivan Kos PETOŠEVIĆ Boris Kozjak Marko Lovrić

Chile
Diego Abogabir Egana Gonzalo Cisternas Espina, Zepeda & Acosta Sergio Gamonal Contreras Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez Roberto Guerrero D. Guerrero, Olivos, Novoa y Errazuriz Roberto Guerrero V. Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile School of Law Davor Harasic Universidad de Chile Gaston Mansilla Fernando Maturana Crino Eyzaguirre & Cía. Omar Morales Montt & Cía. Patricio Morales Estudio Jurídico Pérez Donoso y Cia Luis Parada Bahamondez, Álvarez & Zegers Manuel Jimenez Pfingsthorn Jara Del Favero Abogados Ltd. Fernando Lolas University of Chile Carla Robledo Estudio Carvallo Moises Sanchez Fundacion Pro Acceso Luis A. Silva Universidad de los Andes Law School Alan Spencer Alessandri & Compañia Juan Enrique Vargas Diego Portales Law School Jorge Wahl Silva Alessandri & Compañía Anonymous Contributors

Colombia
Eduardo Barajas Rosario University Mauricio A. Bello Galindo Baker & McKenzie Colombia S.A. Hector Hernandez Botero Prieto Carrizosa Eduardo Cardenas Caballero Cárdenas & Cárdenas Abogados Ltda. Marcela Castro Universidad de Los Andes Jose Duran Excellentia Hermes Garcia Cavelier Abogados Jorge Gonzalez-Jacome Universidad Javeriana Jorge Lara LaraConsultores Maria Fernanda Navas-Herrera Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Luis Nieto Nieto & Chalela Posse Herrera & Ruiz Angela Maria Ruiz Sternberg Universidad del Rosario Fredy A. Sandoval Fredy A. Sandoval Abogados Raul Suarez Arcila Natalia Tobón Cavelier Abogados Anonymous Contributors

Dalida Rittossa Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka Djuro Sessa Association of Croatian Judges Alan Soric Law Office Soric Ana Stavljenic-Rukavina University of Zagreb Anonymous Contributors

Czech Republic
Ondrej Dusek Jan Filip Faculty of Law, Masaryk University Pavel Holec Holec, Zuska & Partners, Attorneys-at-law Stepan Holub Holubova - advokati s.r.o. Jan Hurdík Masaryk University Marie Jansova Glatzova & Co., s.r.o. Eva Kocmanová EK Law Office Tomas Matejovsky CMS Cameron McKenna Radek Matous Balcar Polansky Eversheds Zoltan Palinkas Schonherr

136

Contributing Experts
Nataša Randlová Randl Partners Martin Strnad Havel, Holásek & Partners Zeiner & Zeiner Anonymous Contributors Ramon Antonio Morales Quintanilla Morales Rodriguez Melara Abogados Marta Celina Rodríguez de Parada Fundación Salvadoreña para el Desarrollo Económico y Social (FUSADES) Juan José Planas Carías Banco Agrícola, S.A Délmer Edmundo Rodríguez Cruz Escuela Superior de Economía y Negocios Piero Antonio Rusconi Gutierrez Rusconi, Medina & Asociados Central-Law Humberto Sáenz Marinero Sáenz & Asociados Oscar Samour Consortium Centro América Abogados Rommell Ismael Sandoval Rosales Consultor Internacional en Libre Ejercicio Jose Eduardo Tomasino Hurtado Consortium Centro América Abogados Benjamin Valdez Iraheta Benjamin Valdez & Asociados Anonymous Contributors Andres Parmas Supreme Court Juri Saar University of Tartu Joel Starkopf Faculty of Medicine, University of Tartu Gaabriel Tavits University of Tartu Andres Vutt University of Tartu Anonymous Contributors Eric Wallenbrock Bird & Bird Anonymous Contributors

Germany
Hubertus Becker Rechtsanwälte Becker Sennhenn Schuster Oliver Bolthausen BridgehouseLaw Central Institute of Mental Health (CIMH) Gregor Dornbusch Thomas Feltes University of Bochum Ulrich Keil

Dominican Republic
Leandro Corral Estrella & Tupete, Abogados Virgilio Bello Gonzalez Bello Rosa & Bello Gonzalez, Attorneys at Law Juan Manuel Caceres Troncoso y Caceres Alberto E. Fiallo S. Pellerano & Herrera Virgilio A. Mendez Mendez & Asociados Juan Musa Domínguez Brito Jose M. Paez Paez-Mueses-Castillo & Asociados Carolina Pichardo Toral Biaggi & Messina Georges Santoni-Recio Russin Vecchi & Heredia Bonetti Anonymous Contributors

Ethiopia
Dubale Z. Addisu Haramaya University H. Jemal Addis Ababa University Kebede Deribe Kassaye

Alexander Putz Putz und Partner Michael K. Riefer

Alemu Meheretu Jimma University Wondemagegn Tadesse Addis Ababa University Lubo Teferi Kerorsa Adama University Abrham Yohannes Abrham Law Office Anonymous Contributors

Henning Rosenau University of Augsburg Stephan Sander Kanzlei Sander Daniel Schulz Carroll, Burdick & McDonough International LLP Rainer Seitz Alexander Baron von Engelhardt

Estonia
Tiit Elenurm Estonian Business School Carri Ginter University of Tartu Kari Kasper Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn Law School Tanel Kerikmäe Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn Law School Liisa Linna Valdo Lips Luiga Mody Haal Borenius Jaanus Mägi Concordia Attorneys at Law Marianne Meiorg Estonian Human Rights Centre Merle Muda University of Tartu Priit Pahapill Luiga Mody Hääl Borenius

France
Patrick Bernard Pr Calvès Catherine Cathiard Veronique Chauveau Olivier de Boutiny BBG Associés N. Fleury Ashurst Jean-Charles Froment Université Pierre Mendès France de Grenoble J. Martin Nicolas Mathieu Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Patrick Murray Winston & Strawn LLP Dominique Tricaud Tricaud Traynard Devonec Stephane Le Guen

Anonymous Contributors

El Salvador
Irene Arrieta Arrieta Bustamante S.A de C.V. Rebecca Atanacio de Basagoitia Jose Caballero University of the West of England Mauricio Cader Carlos Enrique Castillo G. Romero Pineda & Asociados DLM AbogadosNotarios-Consultores Ana Yesenia Granillo de Tobar Orlando Ernesto Lemus Herrera Bufete Lemus Diego Martín-Menjívar Consortium Centro América Abogados Carlos Mauricio Molina Fonseca Bufete Molina y Asociados

Ghana
Azanne Kofi Akainyah A & A Law Consult Emma Amakye A & A Law Consult John E. Amakye A & A Law Consult Nene Amegatcher Sam Okudzeto & Associates Julie Asante Integritas Rachel Baddoo Laryea, Laryea & Co. Paa Kwesi Hagan Fugar & Company Nii Nortey Hanson-Nortey National TB Control Programme of Ghana Health Service Olusola Ogundimu Integrated Legal Consultants

137

Ibargüen. Faculty of Law Emanuele Panattoni Labruna Mazziotti Segni Giovanni Pasqua International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences Roberto Rosapepe University of Salerno Piero Venturini Alberto Zucconi Istituto dell’Approccio Centrato Sulla Persona (IACP) Anonymous Contributors Indonesia Hamud M. Montano. City University of Hong Kong Rick Glofcheski Faculty of Law. Enrique Moller Moller Attorneys at Law Gabriel Muadi Muadi & Murga Oscar Pineda Moller Attorneys at Law Juan Jose Porras Palomo & Porras Jose E. Sriro Dyah Ersita & Partners Anonymous Contributors Guatemala Rodolfo Alegria T.WJP Rule of Law Index Sam Okudzeto Sam Okudzeto & Associates Sam Poku Business Council for Africa (BCA) Michael Quarshie Jacob Saah Mohammed Shahadu Gyandoh Asmah & Co.K. Nagarathna National Law School of India University Anil Paleri Institute of Palliative Medicine Amit Prakash Priyesh Poovanna Hewlett-Packard Iran Ardeshir Atai Atai & Associates Law Offices Parviz Azadfallah Tarbiat Modares University A.K. Carrillo y Asociados Ruby Asturias Aczalaw Jorge Rolando Barrios Bonilla. University of Hong Kong Surya Deva Faculty of Law. Anonymous Contributors Boughton Peterson Yang Anderson Eric TM Cheung Faculty of Law. Mona Rachael Irving University of the West Indies. Zamani Moghaddam Yahya Rayegani Farjam Law Office Anonymous Contributors Jamaica Natalie Corthesy Faculty of Law. Quinones Quiñones. University of Hong Kong John Kong Shan Ho Faculty of Law. Mona Derrick McKoy University of the West Indies.C. Kusnandar Kusnandar & Co. Advocates and Solicitors Anuj Kaul Legasis Services Private Limited Suresh Kumar Institute of Palliative Medicine Rajiv K. Mancuso Baker & McKenzie Luigi Mori Biolato Longo Ridola & Mori Giovanni Nardulli Legance Studio Legale Associato Fulvio Maria Palombino University of Naples. Koo Faculty of Law. Ennis & Gordon David C. Sartono Hanafiah Ponggawa & Partners Hadi Pratomo University of Indonesia. Mona Stacey Mitchell Frater. Balfas Ali Budiardjo Nugroho Reksodiputro Rahayu Ningsih Hoed Winita E. S.C. Peter Figueroa University of the West Indies. China Edward Alder Prince’s Chambers Farzana Aslam University of Hong Kong 138 .R. Smith Institute for Sustainable Development. Subramanian Indian Institute of Technology Rajinder Vishwanath Hewlett-Packard Anonymous Contributors Roberto Ceccon Ceccon & Associati Vittorio Cerulli Irelli Diana Urania Galetta Università degli Studi di Milano Gianfranco Di Garbo Baker & McKenzie Paolo Greco University of Salerno Enrico M. Barrios Andrade & Asociados Carmen Ximena Arias & Munoz Anonymous Contributors India Jhelum Chowdhury Vyapak Desai Nishith Desai Associates E. S. Ovalle & Asociados Mario Roberto Guadron Rouanet Estuardo Mata Quiñones. Eduardo Rosenberg Marroquin. Rosenberg & Associates Luis Enrique Solares Larrave Asensio. Mona J. Shroff Tata Institute of Social Sciences Prakash Singh S. The Open University of Hong Kong Anonymous Contributors Hemal P. Mona Annette Crawford Sykes University Hospital of the West Indies.C. Thambi Durai Durai Group Companies Pankaj Jain Rajas Kasbekar Little & Co. Faculty of Public Health Mardjono Reksodiputro University of Indonesia Andrew I. University of the West Indies.N. Caranta Turin University Hong Kong SAR. Luthra Luthra & Luthra Law Offices Vipender Mann KNM & Partners Saurabh Misra Saurabh Misra & Associates Shantanu Mohan Puri Shantanu Mohan & Associates A. M. Luján & Mata. University of the West Indies Anonymous Contributors Italy G. University of Hong Kong Charles C L Kwong School of Arts and Social Sciences. Li & Nie A. Luján & Mata. Ibarguen.. Ajani University of Torino Mariano Cingolani Università of Macerata Astolfo Di Amato Antonella Antonucci Università di Bari Francesco Bico De Luca Law Firm R. City University of Hong Kong Christopher Hooley Oldham. Toriello & Barrios Alvaro Cordon Cordon.

Arida Arida Law Firm Eman Al-Dabbas International Business Legal Associates Yousef S. Gross & Company Advocates Jackie Kamau Laibuta. Mu’tah University Mahmoud Ali Quteishat Dima Yousef Azzam Zalloum Zalloum & Laswi Law Firm Anonymous Contributors Malaysia Azmi Mohd Ali Azmi & Associates Ashgar Ali Ali Mohamed International Islamic University Naemah Amin International Islamic University S. Ltd. Jones Meredith Safer Anonymous Contributors Kenya James Geseke M. Navarrete y Nader. Faculty of Medicine Maya Khairallah Lebanese American University Georges Labaki Notre Dame University Souraya Machnouk Abou Jaoude & Associates Law Firm Mexico Isis Anaya Teresa Carmona Iker Arriola White & Case LLP Alberto Balderas Jáuregui. Kamau & Maema Advocates Kioko Kiilu Kenya Red Cross Stanley Kamau Maina Ahad Kenya Trust Eric Kibet Morusoi Advocate of the High Court of Kenya Salima Mohammed Kenya Red Cross Society Remigeo P.B. Advocates Dennis Mung’atta Gichimu Mung’atta & Co. John Hummel Oregon Consensus Institute at Portland State University Mohamedu F. 139 . Anonymous Contributors Lebanon Adib Bou Habib Lebanese Trade Unions Training Center – LTUTC Sleiman Dagher Badri and Salim El Meouchi Law Firm Antoine Ghafari Ghafari & Associates Khatoun Haidar Amjad Kanaan University of Balamand. Kamau & Maema Advocates Jordan D. Advocates Simon Kariuki Kenya Medical Research Institute Kamau Karori Iseme. Anonymous Contributors Riad Madani Manar University of Tripoli (MUT) Raymond Medlej Medlej Law Firm Adel Mourad Manar University of Tripoli (MUT) Mohamad Ramadan Elaref Law Office Hafez Zakhour Kyrgyzstan Nodira Akbaralieva Nurlan Alymbaev Nurlan Bakirov Ms. Cheah S. Mang’erere J. Dajani & Associates Law Office Nisreen Mahasneh Yarmouk University Abedalelah Al-Nawaiseh Faculty of Law. Anonymous Contributors Stephen Okeyo Leonard S. Kazakhstan Institute of Management. Tuyebekova Michael Wilson & Partners. Abatah Jordan University Tarik H. Kazakhstan Valery Chechulin Michael Wilson & Partners.Contributing Experts Japan Yasuhiro Fujii Baker & McKenzie Yuji Fujita Fuji Law Office Toshiaki Higashi Denso Kitakyushu Co. Shigetoshi Hirano Oh-Ebashi LPC & Partners Shigeji Ishiguro Oguri & Ishiguro Law Office Nobuo Koinuma Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine Yumiko Mochizuki National Cancer Center Research Institute Takashi Maruta Kwansei Gakuin Law School Masanobu Nakamura International Education Information Centre Yasutaka Ogawa Anonymous Contributors Zhenis Kembayev Kazakhstan Institute of Management. Kamau & Co. Elvira Grata Law Firm Azamat Kerimbaev American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative Khakimov Ruslan Soros Foundation Kyrgyzstan Nazik Satkeyeva Kalikova & Associates Kanat Seidaliev Grata Law Firm Saodat Shakirova Kalikova & Associates Ulan Tilenbaev Kalikova & Associates Anonymous Contributors Anonymous Contributors Liberia Pearl Brown Bull Bull Law Firm F. Gaturu & Co.B. Opundo Opundo & Associates Advocates Peter Ouma Kenya Institute of Medical Research Yvonne Wangui Machira Tafiti Research Group Ltd. Advocates Anthony Gross A. Economics and Strategic Research (KIMEP) University Roman Nurpeissov Faculty of Law. S. Economics and Strategic Research (KIMEP) School of Law Yerjanov Timur Al-Farabi Kazakh National University Alida N. Advocates Martin Munyu Iseme. Khalilieh Rajai K. Cheah & Associates Nik AK Mahmod Zoharah Omar Universiti Putra Malaysia Vijayan Venugopal Shearn Delamore & Co.. Kamau & Maema Advocates Kiingati Ndirangu Kairu Mbuthia & Kiingati Advocates Anthony Njogu Daly & Figgis Angela Achieng Ochumba Iseme. Augustus Caesar Jr. Mugambi Muthoga.F. Caesar Architects Inc. W.C. & Co. Ltd.

Siqueiros y Torres Landa. S. Anonymous Contributors Netherlands Marieke Andringa Heussen Attorneys and Civil-law Notaries Duco de Boer Stibbe R.C. Boswijk Hans J. School of Government. Walburg Trimbos Institute Anonymous Contributors Miriam R.C. Cárdenas Stanford Law School Hans Goebel Jauregui. Legal Practitioners Bamidele Aturu Bamidele Aturu & Co. J. Williams University of Auckland Law Faculty Scott Wilson Duncan Cotterill Anonymous Contributors Nigeria Joseph Abugu Abugu & Co. Victoria University of Wellington Morocco Samir Bensaid Richard D. University of Otago Michael Heron Russell McVeagh Robert Hesketh Office of Human Rights Proceedings Bill Hodge Justin Hygate New Zealand Companies Office Helen Kelly New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Blair Kiddle Lyon O’Neale Arnold Alan Knowsley Rainey Collins Andrew Little Engineering. Alberto Costi Faculty of Law.F.C. S. Printing & Manufacturing Union Fiona Glen McLean Hewlett-Packard Brenda Midson University of Waikato Stephen Mills QC Shortland Chambers Ron Paterson Faculty of Law. Jellinghaus University of Tilburg M.M. University of Auckland Nicola Peart University of Otago Kate Redgewell Bell Gully Kevin Riordan New Zealand Defence Force Campbell Roberts The Salvation Army Paul Roth Faculty of Law. Victoria University of Wellington Andrew Butler Glenn Cooper Wynn Williams and Co. Forbes QC Andrew Geddis Faculty of Law.H. Navarrete y Nader Alfredo Kupfer Baker & McKenzie Oliva Lopez Arellano Sergio López Moreno Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana Guillermina Natera Guillermo Piecarchic PMC Group Julio Hernandez Pliego Bufete Hernandez Pliego Carlos Riquelme Carrancá. Jorge Luis Silva-Mendez Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México Pietro Straulino Sanchez DeVanny Esseverri Juan Francisco Torres Landa Barrera. Monica A. Kortmann University of Nijmegen Daan de Lange Brinkhof Jolanda A. Meeuwissen Trimbos Institute Carla Schoonderbeek NautaDutilh Martijn Snoep De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek Jacqueline van den Bosch Houthoff Buruma Arnold Versteeg Brinkhof J.V. Acosta y Riquelme Cristina Sanchez-Urtiz Miranda & Estavillo S. Hoegen Dijkhof Hoegen Dijkhof Attorneys & Tax Counsellors S. Cantin Juristructures LLP Kettani Mehdi Kettani & Associates Tarik Mossadek University of Settat. Titilola AyotundeRotifa Valuespeak Solicitors Abdulhamid Abdullahi Bagara Community Health and Research Initiative Ade Dejiadekunle Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Study New Zealand Denise Arnold Lyon O’Neale Arnold Sylvia Bell Human Rights Commission Marie Bismark Buddle Findlay Peter Boshier Family Court of New Zealand Simon Bridges New Zealand Parliament David Bromell Institute of Policy Studies. Cazm QC Kate Diesfeld University of Waikato Christine Egan A J Park Austin Forbes QC A. University of Otago Mary-Rose Russell Auckland University of Technology Feona Sayles Massey University Cheryl Simes Kiwilaw Advocates Ltd Peter Spiller District Court Paul Sumpter D.C.WJP Rule of Law Index Iñigo Cantu Reus Cantu Reus Abogados Teresa Cantu Reus Cantu Reus Abogados Eugenio J. Ringe y Correa.. Underwood Alan Webb D. Yomi Alliyu Chief Yomi Alliyu & Co. Seyi Akinwunmi Akinwunmi & Busari. New Zealand Centre for Public Law Paul Gooby Geoff Hall Faculty of Law. Yusuf Ali Yusuf Ali & Co.J. Koevoets C. Schiaffino Perez Basham. Faculty of Law Anis Mouafik Mouafik Law Firm Nesrine Roudane NERO Boutique Law Firm Marc Veuillot CMS Bureau Francis Lefebvre Maroc Anonymous Contributors 140 . Solicitors Adedeji Adekunle Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies Onjefu Adoga Brooke Chambers Olisa Agbakoba Olisa Agbakoba & Associates Chioma Kanu Agomo University of Lagos Ademola Ajuwon University of Ibadan Taiwi Esther Akintade Yusuf Ali & Co. Araujo. University of Otago Claudia Geiringer Victoria University of Wellington School of Law.

Akinrele & Co. Vargas & Fernandez Jorge Dávila Carbajal Estudio Olaechea Dino Carlos Caro Coria Caro & Associates Juan Carlos Durand Grahammer Durand Abogados Evan E.Contributing Experts Idowu Durosinmi-Etti Adepetun Caxton-Martins Agbor & Segun Efena Efetie National Hospital Nnenna Ejekam Nnenna Ejekam Associates Mary Ekemezie Udo Udoma & Belo-Osagie Olumide Ekisola Adejumo Ekisola and Ezeani Godwin Etim Aelex Legal Practitioners & Arbitrators Olubunmi Fayokun Aluko & Oyebode Peter K. Bogaru & Associates Radu Chirita Babes-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca Miloiu Ciprian Miloiu Ciprian Private Practice Cosmin Flavius Costas Babes-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca Radu Diaconu Norway Ivar Alvik University of Oslo 141 . Ortiz Follosco Morallos & Herce Alfredo Z. Fogam University of Lagos Vitalis Chukwumalu Ihedigbo Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors Clara Mbachu Kenna Partners Godwin Obla Obla & Co. Anonymous Contributors Elizabeth Baumann Stavanger Tingrett Karl Harald Sovig University of Bergen Geir Steinberg Advokatfirmaet Haavind AS Stella Tuft Microsoft Tor Vale Law Firm Hartsang DA Jane Wesenberg Kluge Advokatfirma DA Anonymous Contributors Peru Eduardo Benavides Berninzon. David DeBenedetti DeBenedetti Majewski Szcześniak Kancelaria Prawnicza Sp.Abogados Rubén Núñez Hijar Estudio Núñez Abogados Marco Alarcon Piana Estudio Echecopar César Puntriano Muniz. Odiawa & Ebie Funmilola Morinoye Olaolorun Ayotunde Ologe SYNERGY Legal Practitioners and Property Consultants Akin Osinbajo Abdulai. Rizvi Rivzi & Rizvi Salman Safdar Chamber of Barrister Salman Safdar Fatima Sajjad Anonymous Contributors Poland Andrzej Brodziak Medical University of Silesia C. Bolaji Owasanoye Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies Festus O. Rodolfo Noel Lozada Jr. Barristers-at-Law Mansoor Hassan Khan Khan & Associates Faiza Muzaffar Legis Inn Attorneys & Corporate Consultants Sania Nishtar Heartfile Amna Piracha Khan & Piracha Adnan Aslam Qureshi Qureshi Law Associates Junaid Abdul Razzak Taffazul H. Pio de Roda III Quasha Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Anonymous Contributors Romania Lucian Bondoc White & Case LLP Aura Câmpeanu Petosevic Cristian Bogaru Hammond. Oladipo Odujinrin Odujinrin & Adefulu Gbenga Odusola Gbenga Odusola & Co. Villanueva Ateneo de Manila Law School Anonymous Contributors Pakistan Syed Muhammad Farhad Tirmazi Tarar & Associates Umer Farooq Ayub Medical College Parvez Hassan Hassan & Hassan Advocates Muzaffar Islam Legis Inn Attorneys & Corporate Consultants Asma Jahangir Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan Shahida Jamil Jamil & Jamil. Taiwo & Co. Seyi Ogunro Banwo & Ighodalo Patrick Okonjo Okonjo. Jesusito Morallos Follosco Morallos & Herce Alan C. Ukwueze Faculty of Law. University of Nigeria Ben Unaegbunam Adepetun. Santos Puyat Jacinto & Santos John Silva National Museum Reginald Tongol Cesar L. Morgan Evan Morgan & Asociados .O. Usman F. Liceralde Sr. Agnieszka Dzięgielewska-Jończyk Hewlett-Packard Joanna Kobza Public Health Department. Caxton-Martins Agbor & Segun Adamu M. Philippines Augusto Jose Y. Benavides. Silesian Medical University Agnieszka Lisiecka Wardynski & Partners Piotr Majer Łaszczuk and Partners Konrad Marchiniuk Miller Canfield Krzysztof Rastawicki Rastawicki Sawicki sp. Ramirez.K. Arreza Arreza & Associates Ciriaco Calalang Calalang Law Office Jose Cochingyan. Perez-Taiman & Olaya Attorneys at Law Marcos Ricardo Revatta Salas UNICA FMH “DAC” Gustavo Víctor de los Ríos Woolls Rey & de los Ríos Emil Ruppert Rubio Leguía Normand Alberto Varillas García Sayán Abogados Jose Luis Velarde Lazarte Estudio Olaechea Manuel Villa-Garcia Estudio Olaechea Anonymous Contributors Rhea Quimson Hewlett-Packard Teodoro Regala Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices Jonathan Sale Roy Enrico C. III Cochingyan & Peralta Law Offices Afdal Kunting Miguel B.k.

Anton Bankovsky Hogan Lovells Roman Golovatsky DLA Piper Igor Gorokhov Capital Legal Services Irina Krasnova Russian Academy of Justice Eduard Margulyan Margulyan & Rakhmilovich Natalya Morozova Evgeny Reyzman Baker & McKenzie Aleksander Konstantinovich Romanov Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences Rainer Wedde Beiten Burkhardt Andrey Zelenin Lidings Law Firm Anonymous Contributors South Africa Jonathan Berger Section 27 G.N. Mafikeng Jimmie Earl Perry Stellenbosch University Rajen Ranchhoojee Dewey & LeBoeuf Altair Richards Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs P. Budlender Cape Bar N. Leonard University of South Africa South Korea An Gang Hyeon Yonsei University Bae Hyuna Ewha Womans University Hewlett-Packard Jeongoh Kim Yonsei University Yoo Hwan Kim Ewha Womans University Haksoo Ko Seoul National University School of Law Juan Oliva Asociación de Economía de la Salud José María Ordóñez Iriarte Sociedad Española de Sanidad Ambiental (SESA) Espana Josep Lluís de Peray Departament de Salut 142 .A.J. Stoop Department of Mercantile Law. Faculty of Law Voicu & Filipescu Anonymous Contributors Josephus Tan Patrick Tan LLC Anonymous Contributors Senegal Aboubacar Fall Fall & Associates Law Offices Mouhamed Kebe Geni & Kebe SCP d’Avocats Ndeye Khoudia Tounkara Etude Me Mayacine Tounkara et Associés El Hadj Omar Youm Mame Adama Gueye & Associes Anonymous Contributors Vuyokazi Matshaya African Medical & Research Foundation Gabriel Meyer Africa Legal Budeli Mpfari University of South Africa Gloria Mtshali Ntombifikile University of KwaZulu-Natal Daphney Nozizwe Conco Democratic Nursing Organization of South Africa Dejo Owolu North-West University. Themboka Democratic Nursing Organization of South Africa Pieter du Toit North-West University Gusha Xolani Ngantweni University of South Africa Anonymous Contributors Hwang Lee Korea University School of Law Hye Jeong Lee Ki-su Lee Dae Jin Sah Hewlett-Packard Anonymous Contributors Spain Juan Francisco Aguiar Rodriguez Servicio Canario de Salud Gobierno de Canarias Roman Gil Alburquerque Sagardoy Abogados Antonio Álvarez del Cuvillo Universidad de Cadiz Carlos Alvarez-Dardet Universidad de Alicante Mar Carrasco Andrino Universidad de Alicante Xavier Castells Oliveres Institut Municipal D’Investigacia Medica Francisco Javier Dávila González Universidad de Cantabria Hector Diaz Diaz-Bastien & Truan Abogados Antonio Doval-Pais Universidad de Alicante Jose Fernández-Rañada Garrigues LLP Antonio Fernández Garrigues LLP Martin Godino Jacobo Dopico Gómez-Aller Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Gustavo de las Heras Universidad de CastillaLa Mancha Hector Jausas JAUSAS Juan A.W. de Havilland The Centre for Constitutional Rights A. Schutte North-West University Susan Scott University of South Africa Milton Seligson Western Cape Bar P. Lascurain Sanchez Universidad Autonoma de Madrid Ramon Mullerat Singapore Peh Yean Cheah Boon Teck Chia Chia Wong LLP Koon-Hou Mak Mak Heart Clinic Foo Cheow Ming KhattarWong S. Cameron Stellenbosch University Etta Chang Eversheds Arthur Chaskalson Hugh Corder Rosalind Davey Bowman Gilfillan Chantelle Feldhaus North-West University Susan Goldstein Thembeka Gwagwa Democratic Nursing Organization of South Africa N. University of South Africa Marinda Surridge Hewlett-Packard G.WJP Rule of Law Index Ioana Gelepu Tuca Zbarcea & Asociatii Anca Ioachimescu Rubin Meter Doru & Trandafir SCA Diana Maria Ionescu Babes-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca Balan Marius Alexandru Ioan Cuza University Vlad Neacsu Popovici Nitu & Partners Gavrila Simona Petrina University of Galati Cristian Radu Tuca Zbarcea & Asociatii Radu Rizoiu STOICA & Asociatii Danut Singurel Hewlett-Packard Claudiu Tampau White & Case LLP Bogdan Trandafirescu University Ovidius Constanta. Suressh Harry Elias Partnership LLP Russia Svetlana Anokhina Andreas Neocleous and Co.

Khalayi & Aheeru Advocates Patrick G. Alunga Barugahare & Co. Uppsala University Christoffer Monell Mannheimer Swartling Advokatbyrå Karol Nowak Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Carl Odelberg Hamilton Law Firm Karl-Arne Olsson Gärde Wesslau Advokatbyrå Claes Sandgren Stockholm University Lars Sandman University of Boras Johan Sangborn Swedish Bar Association Sanna Wolk Stockholm University Vitaliy Gordeev Morgulyan K. Koc University Gökben Erdem Dirican Pekin & Pekin Ece Goztepe Bilkent University Naci Gündoğan Anadolu University Osman Hayran Yeditepe University Altan Liman Aydas Liman Kurman Attorneys at Law Orhan Yavuz Mavioglu Alkan Deniz Mavioglu Law Firm Pekin & Bayar Law Firm Zerrin Sungur Anadolu University Filiz Tepecik Anadolu University Cagatay Yilmaz Yilmaz Law Office United Arab Emirates Ibrahim Elsadig SNR Denton Fahmy El-Hallag M. Brian Kalule Nsubuga & Co. Mpiima & Co. Lubega.G. Ssenoga National Forestry Authority Mpiima Jamir Ssenoga Kiwanuka. Advocates Emilio Ovuga Gulu University E. Advocates Daniel Kalinaki Monitor Publications Ltd. Wasige MMAKS Advocates Anonymous Contributors Sweden Jack Agren Stockholm University Gabriel Albemark Hamilton Law Firm Carl-Olof Bouveng Advokatfirman Lindahl Laura Carlson Stockholm University Daniel Drott Boel Flodgren Lund University Fredrik Gustafsson Advokatfirma Dla Nordic Kb Mats Hellström Hellström Law Firm Catherine Lions Olov Marsater Faculty of Law. Panicker Panicker & Partners Abdul Karim Pharaon 143 . Advocates Uganda Christian University Noah S. Advocates Kiwanuka M. Ssempebwa and Co. Bahemuka Kahuma. Mushash United Arab Emirates University Kavitha S. Rukidi Kasirye Byaruhanga Advocates & Legal Consultants John Bosco Rwakimari Uganda IRS Project Roscoe Sozi Kimuli & Sozi Advocates Fredrick Ssempebwa Katende.Barugahare Barugahare & Co. Sssempebwa and Co. Voynarovska Vasil Kisil & Partners Law Firm Andriy Zubach Andriy Zubach Partners Anonymous Contributors Chulapong Yukate Baker & McKenzie LLP Anonymous Contributors Turkey Pinar Ay Ufuk Aydin Anadolu University Bahir Bozcali Bozcali Law Offices Gokce Celen Celen Law Office Murat Volkan Dülger Dülger Law Firm Bertil Emrah Oder School of Law. Advocates Phillip Karugaba MMAKS Advocates George Kasekende Kasekende. Advocates A. Law Bureau Nick Karchevsky Lugans State University of Internal Affairs Andriy Kirmach Chadbourne & Parke LLP Taras Kyslyy Olexander Martinenko CMS Cameron McKenna LLC Yaroslav Ognevyuk Doubinsky & Osharova Yaroslav Petrov Asters Alina Plyushch Integrites Olga Prokopovych Chadbourne & Parke LLP Alexander Subbotin Oksana I.Contributing Experts Antonio Pedrajas Quiles Abdon Pedrajas & Molero Luis Gaite Pindado Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla Santiago Fernández Redondo Hospital La Princesa Gregorio Tudela Universidad Autonoma de Madrid Ester Villalonga Olives Institut Municipal D’Investigacia Medica Anonymous Contributors Anonymous Contributors Serap Zuvin Serap Zuvin Law Offices Anonymous Contributors Ukraine Misiats Andrij Misiats & Partners Alexander Bodnaruk Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University Zoryana Chernenko Kiyv-Mohyla Academy Borys Danevych Paritet Law Firm Lyubomyr Drozdovskyy D & U Partners Nazar Fedorchuk Vitali Gatseliuk Thailand Palawi Bunnag International Legal Counsellors Paul Connelly International Legal Counsellors Alastair Henderson Herbert Smith LLP Ugrid Milintangkul Alan Polivnick Watson Farley & Williams Chanvit Tharathep Ministry of Public Health Nettaya Warncke Uganda P. Kyeyune & Lutaaya Advocates Lillian Keene-Mugerwa Platform for Labour Action Alexander Kibandama Synergy Solicitors and Advocates Anita Muhanguzi Centre for Batwa Minorities Hasfa Namulindwa Katende.

Fenton Democratic Governance and Rule of Law LLM Program. Funk Funk. University of Edinburgh Francesco P. Institute of Psychiatry Pamela Keys Anderson Strathern LLP Judy Laing Bristol University Stavroula Leka University of Nottingham Mark Lubbock Ashurst Peter McTigue Nottingham Law School J.Center for Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response James H. Pietsch University of Hawaii Renee Pobjecky Pobjecky & Pobjecky LLP John Pollock Public Justice Center Vernellia Randall The University of Dayton School of Law John Stone State University of New York at Buffalo David Yamada Suffolk University Law School Laura A. Castillo & Duque Jaime Martinez E. University of London Bill Hebenton Manchester University Simon Honeyball University of Exeter Rachel Jenkins King’s College London. Eleanor D. Szachacz & Diamond LLC Debra Gardner Public Justice Center Stanton Glantz University of California San Francisco Kenneth W. Axelrod. Martinez & Asociados Sonsiree Meza Leal DPZ Abogados 144 .Indianapolis Nancy G.C. McConnell Stanford Law School James Paturas Yale New Haven Health . Kinney Indiana University School of Law . Nguyen-Van-Tam University of Nottingham Tonia Novitz Vietnam Tran Thi Bich Ngoc Indochine Counsel Kevin Hawkins Mayer Brown JSM Nguyen Huu Phuoc Phuoc & Partners Law Firm Milton Lawson Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP Huong Nguyen Luat Viet Linh Nguyen Vilaf Hong-Duc Pham Van Phat Anphat Pham Law Firm Nguyen Nhan Quang Centre for Promotion of Integrated Water Resources Management Anonymous Contributors United States Laura Abel Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law Jeffrey Aresty Internet Bar Organization Collen Beebe Purisaca Peace and Hope International Sharon Camp Guttmacher Institute Charles Clark Indiana University School of Medicine James Cleary University of Wisconsin Madison Sherman L. Chique Rafael de Lemos Raffalli. Mandler Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Michael W. Queen Mary. Halvorssen. Young Anonymous Contributors Gregory Odreman Odreman &Asociados John R. Scott Hurd Iowa State University John Jacobi Seton Hall Law School H. Beins. Goodman University of Miami Thomas Gottschalk Venezuela Jose J.WJP Rule of Law Index Marcus Wallman Al Tamimi & Company Mohammed Zaheeruddin Anonymous Contributors Hannah Quirk Manchester University Kiron Reid University of Liverpool Katja Samuel Nottingham University Cassam Tengnah Swansea University Tony Ward University of Hull Anonymous Contributors Gutierrez & Associates Jonathan Hiatt AFL-CIO Debra Houry Emory University Alan Houseman Center for Law and Social Policy H. Jr. P. Cappuccio Warwick Medical School Janice Denoncourt Nottingham Law School Nigel Duncan The City Law School Sarah Elliston University of Glasgow Georgina Firth Lancaster University Sara Fovargue Lancaster University Gabriel Gari Centre for Commercial Law Studies. David Kelly. Pelaez. de Lemos. Cohn Georgetown University Law Center Robert Collins University of Pennsylvania Elizabeth Defeis Patrick Del Duca Zuber & Taillieu LLP Steven Eckhaus Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP Peter Edelman Georgetown University Law Center Howard N.S. University of London Mark Bell University of Leicester Penny Brearey-Horne University of Essex Mark Butler Lancaster University David Cabrelli School of Law. Pate De Sola Pate & Brown Anonymous Contributors United Kingdom Richard Ashcroft Queen Mary. Rodner. Ohio Northern University Kepler B. Lischer Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Thomas Y. Ortega y Ortiz Andrés José Linares Benzo Hoet.

Part V: Acknowledgements .

and Ivan Batishchev. Neukom. Universidad del Rosario. Laurence Tribe. HiiL and Utrecht University. Se Hwan Kim. Kabul University. Deyo. Ellen Mignoni. Hassan Bubacar Jallow. and Russom Woldezghi. Gordon Smith. Universidad del Rosario. Javier Ramirez. Sophie Gebreselassie. Kate Coffey. Michaela Saisana. Ana Cruz. Christopher Stone. William H. Robin Weiss. Hans Corell. Sheila Hollis. Balfas. Justin Nyekan. William H. Sam Muller. Audrey Sacks. Sherman Cohn. William Ide. and Gerold W. WJP Executive Director. Michael Holston. Eduardo Cifuentes. Linn Hammergren. Russell C. Neukom. Paul Brest. Lianne Labossiere. Anna Gardner. Wassim Harb. William T. Roberts. Sean O’Brien. Maurits Barendrecht. Roy L. Cynthia Powell. Zsuzsanna Lonti. Jose Cochingyan. Kramer. American University. Martin Gramatikov. Libby. Sandra Elena. Anne Kelley. Christina Biebesheimer. Nabiha Chowdhury. Revilla. Murtaza Jaffer. Silkenat. Irma Russell. Carolina Cabrera. Laurel Bellows. Gilbert. American Bar Foundation and Northwestern University.Acknowledgements Acknowledgements The World Justice Project’s Founder. Sujith George. Greco. Rene Uruena. Stanford University. III. University of South Carolina. Jose Caballero. Roger Martella. Gates. University of South Carolina. III. Jorge Gonzalez. Adrian F. James R. La Trobe University and Oxford University. ITAM. The Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law. Junaid Khalid. Universidad de los Andes. Margaret Levi. Tilburg University. Pat Keyes. Arab Center for the Development of Rule of Law and Integrity (ACRLI). Shannon Portillo. Ghada Moussa. Ludmila Mendonça Lopes Ribeiro. Loris. Lutforahman Saeed. David Bruscino. Denniston. Universidad de los Andes. Randal Peerenboom. Lina Alameddine. EU-JRC. Susman. University of Washington. Rose Murray. University of South Carolina. The WJP’s Directors and Officers: Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad. George Mason University. Andrea Saltelli. R. Loyola University. Adam Gerstenmier. William H. Emil Constantinescu. Claudia J. Beatriz Magaloni. Ashraf Ghani. Ted Carroll. Academic advisors: Harris Pastides. Humberto Prado Sifontes. Larry D. Abderrahim Foukara. Peggy Ochanderena. Ellen Gracie Northfleet. Lawrence B. Jon Gould. 149 . Barbara Cooperman. Jorge Luis Silva. The World Bank. Leila Hanafi. The Institute for State Effectiveness. Nancy Ward. Bailey. The Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Dumas. Hongxia Liu. and staff: April Baskin. Thomas M. Diego Lopez. Nigel H. Harvard University. Michael Maya. Warwick University. Clare Lockhart. Ronald Janse. Javier Castro De León. Rob Boone. Kunio Hamada. Tilburg University. Hubbard. Universidad Javeriana. Iris Litt. Stephen Zack. Frank Mantero. Angela Ruiz. Arthur Chaskalson. Andrei Shleifer. Susan Hirsch. Harvard University. Minoru Furuyama. George Mason University. Karan K. Brackett B. Katrina Moore. Brad Smith. Xavier Muller.. Jack Krumholtz. Cairo University. University of the West of England. Bruce Sewell. Universidad de los Andes. Hamud M. Stanford University. Bhatia. III. Sarah Alexander. Marie-Therese Julita. Claudia Rast. Sr. Alvaro Herrero. Elisa Massimino. Rule of Law Collaborative. Susanna Brown. University of Chicago. Jack Knight. Mathews. HiiL. Gustavo Alanis Ortega. John Pollock. Prosterman. Dorothy Garcia. Angela Pinzon. Marcela Castro. EU-JRC. Georgetown University. Deborah Enix-Ross. Tom Ginsburg. President and CEO. Liliana Moreno. William C. Jorge Zapp Glauser. Mondli Makhanya. Duke University. Suzanne E. Steve Ross. Michael S. Richard Randerson. Universidad del Rosario. Joshua Steele. Roderick B. Eduardo Barajas. Howard Kenison. Robert Nelson. Universidad de los Andes. Rolf Alter. The American Bar Association. Julio Faundez.

American Bar Association Section of Health Law. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. WJP Rule of Law Index 2011 main financial supporters: The Neukom Family Foundation. and Fleishman-Hillard. Financial Supporters. APCO Worldwide. and the contributing experts listed in the previous section. Vera Institute of Justice. Yale University. Altus Global Alliance. and Sponsoring Organizations listed in the last section of this report. Stanford University. The Legal Department of Hewlett-Packard Limited. 150 . Development. and the Rule of Law. The Legal Department of Microsoft Corporation. American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law. The Center on Democracy. American Bar Association Section of Environment. and Resources. Energy. WJP Honorary Chairs.WJP Rule of Law Index The Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies. The polling companies and research organizations listed on page 119 of this report. American Bar Association Section of International Law. and LexisNexis.

the provision of seed grants for rule of law projects. In addition to the creation of a comprehensive Rule of Law Index. Founded in 2006 as a presidential initiative of the American Bar Association (ABA) and the support of the leading global organizations and individuals listed below. non-profit organization in 2009. the WJP’s work is being carried out through the convening of global and regional meetings of world leaders. and the origination of new scholarship on rule of law issues. The rule of law is the foundation to improving public health. and stimulating government reforms that enhance the rule of law. The Project’s efforts are dedicated to increasing public awareness about the concept and practice of the rule of law. Goals and Program Areas Advancing the rule of law around the world is the central goal of the World Justice Project. ensuring security. Without the rule of law. the World Justice Project became an independent. medicines do not reach health facilities due to corruption. multidisciplinary initiative to strengthen the rule of law for the development of communities of opportunity and equity. and fighting poverty. safeguarding fundamental human rights.About the WJP About The World Justice Project The World Justice Project is a global. and respect for fundamental rights. corrupt governments divert public resources needed for public works. people are killed in criminal violence. Establishing the rule of law is fundamental to achieving communities of opportunity and equity— communities that offer sustainable economic development. developing practical programs in support of the rule of law at the community level. accountable government. and businesses’ costs increase because of expropriation risk. women in rural areas remain unaware of their rights. The WJP’s definition of the rule of law is organized 153 .

Neukom. Oak Foundation. stable and fair. Joel Martinez. including security of persons and property. 154 Financial Supporters Foundations: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Mary Robinson. Tassaduq Hussain Jillani. . Prosterman. Mathews. Neukom. Kelly Roberts. President and Chief Executive Off icer. and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve. Petar Stoyanov. Xavier Muller. Bailey. and enforced is accessible. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Robert Badinter. Giuliano Amato. The laws are clear. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. social. James A. attorneys or representatives and judicial officers who are of sufficient number. Secretary. Ana Palacio. General Counsel. Alejandro Ponce. Leila Hanafi. and efficient. Desmond Tutu. and ethical adjudicators. Executive Director. April Baskin. National Endowment for Democracy. This definition has been tested and refined through extensive consultations with experts from around the world. Vice President. publicized. Steve Ross. and Scholarship. Libby. William H. Goldstone. William C. The Scholarship program supports rigorous research examining the contributions of the rule of law to various aspects of political. Neukom Family Foundation. Sandra Day O’Connor. Hubbard. Oussama Bouchebti. Sean O’Brien. Officers and Staff William C. Harry Woolf. economic. Sharan Burrow. Jr. Roderick B. Jimmy Carter. Juan Carlos Botero. Kennedy. Mitchell. Russom Woldezghi. Robin Weiss. The WJP Rule of Law Index® is an innovative assessment tool designed to provide a detailed and comprehensive picture of the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice. Vice President. Antonio Vitorino. William H. The WJP works to create new mechanisms for advancing the rule of law through its three complementary and mutually reinforcing program areas: Mainstreaming. fair. Hamilton. The Honorary Chairs of the World Justice Project are: Madeleine Albright. Gerold W. Stephen G. Dorothy Garcia. Lee H. Powell. » » Hilario G. Maria L. have adequate resources. Emil Constantinescu. Hernando de Soto. Kunio Hamada. Nancy Ward. » » Honorary Chairs The World Justice Project has the support of outstanding leaders representing a range of disciplines around the world. Hubbard. Mohamed Ibrahim. William H. and Access to justice is provided by competent. Christine Pratt. Sr. Ted Carroll. Volcker. Chelsea Jaetzold. Baker III. Colin L. Richard J. Lawrence B.. The process by which the laws are enacted. Mondli Makhanya. Arthur Chaskalson. Joshua Steele. Andrew Young. Silkenat. Gates. Raymond Webster. and cultural development and shedding new light on advancing the rule of law.. independent. Juan Manuel Botero. Riley. John Edwin Mroz. Richard W. Hans Corell. David Byrne. Staff: Hongxia Liu. Indra Nooyi. Silkenat. Gilbert.WJP Rule of Law Index under four universal principles and is derived from established international standards and norms: » » The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law. Deborah Enix-Ross. as well as outreach meetings in the U. Suzanne E. James R. Peter Sutherland. Ellen Gracie Northfleet. Board of Directors Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad. George J. Zhelyu Zhelev. Sweeney. Sophie Gebreselassie.S. Anthony M. Roy L. Cattaui. administered. John J. Vice President. Nabiha Chowdhury. James R. » Mainstreaming programs assemble world leaders through the WJP’s global and regional meetings in five continents. Ana Cruz. Breyer. Founder. Paul A. Ashraf Ghani. Davide. GE Foundation. Chairman of the Board. and protect fundamental rights. the Rule of Law Index. Treasurer.

R. Hubbard. James R. Corporations: Microsoft Corporation. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. Union Internationale des Avocats. American Bar Association Section of International Law. Bailey. Mathews. Hewlett-Packard. NAFSA: Association of International Educators.. I. Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. increasing in its ability to represent disciplines and world regions. and/or of the World Justice Forum are: World Federation of Public Health Associations.worldjusticeproject. E. Professional Firms: Major. du Pont de Nemours and Company. Lindsey & Africa. Deborah Enix-Ross. The World Council of Religious Leaders. Chase Family Philanthropic Fund. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Avocats Sans Frontieres. Anderson & Stowe. American Public Health Association. LLP. American Bar Association. Llewelyn G. The Boeing Company. Johnson & Johnson. Lawrence B. Carnegie Corporation of New York. Turner Freeman Lawyers. Mark S.S. Inc. Governments: Irish Aid. Margaret McKeown. Allen & Overy Foundation. Roderick B. Leslie Miller. Hunton & Williams.. International Organization of Employers. Energy. Professional and Trade Associations: American Bar Association Section of Environment. LLP. Anthony Patterson Jr.. Neukom. William H. Inter-Pacific Bar Association. U. Thomas Z. The current sponsors of the World Justice Project 155 . Norwegian Bar Association. Troutman Sanders LLP. Haynes and Boone. Individual Donors: H. McKinsey & Company.org. Ellis. The list of sponsoring organizations continues to expand. People to People International. Canadian Bar Association. International Bar Association. Merck & Co.S. visit www. Transparency International USA. Ashmus. SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan.. Fulbright & Jaworski LLP. III. American Bar Association Section of Health Law. Mason.About the WJP Ford Foundation. Law Firms: K&L Gates. Carson. Sponsoring Organizations The World Justice Project is sponsored by organizations that provide global leadership in a variety of disciplines. Hayward. Cochingyan & Peralta Law Offices. J. Inc. Hayes+Curran. Chamber of Commerce & Related Entities. William C. Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law. and Resources. International Chamber of Commerce.. American Society of Civil Engineers. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Jr. White & Case LLP. For further details. Gilbert. Partridge. Intel Corporation. Welsh. Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights. Norman E. Schiller & Flexner. Suzanne E. Inter-American Bar Association. Schilbred. Silkenat. LexisNexis. American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law. Keith A. Viacom International Inc. WalMart Stores. World Federation of Engineering Organisations. Inc. Garrigues LLP.. Harned. Inc. Human Rights Watch. Arab Center for the Development of the Rule of Law and Integrity. International Trade Union Confederation. Chamber of Commerce. Hongxia Liu. M. Pritchard. Texas Instruments. Human Rights First. Erik A. Boies.. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. U. Winston & Strawn LLP. Scott F. William Ide. William Allen. General Electric Company. Claire Suzanne Holland. Allen & Overy LLP. Club of Madrid.

in order to protect the widows and orphans. But I would prefer to make lawsuits unnecessary.. in order to declare justice in the land. or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined. the second Khalifa of Islam “No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs. nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. established… That the strong might not injure the weak. for all nations have established for themselves certain regulations exacted by custom and human necessity. to settle all disputes.” Magna Carta . is common to the entire human race.” Analects of Confucius “ The Law of Nations. nor the humble despair of your justice.” Judicial guidelines from ‘Umar bin al-Khattab. To no-one will we sell or deny or delay right or justice.” Corpus Juris Civilis “ Treat the people equally in your court and give them equal attention. and heal all injuries..“Laws of justice which Hammurabi. the wise king. however.” Codex Hammurabi “I could adjudicate lawsuits as well as anyone. so that the noble shall not aspire to your partiality..

property. language. colour. They are the source of morals. birth or other status. as though power were justice itself. when necessary. religion. If they are not the foundation of government. they moderate power and help ensure respect for it. They affect every individual. his person and his property as though he alone were the whole city. national or social origin. they follow him everywhere. they mingle with the primary activities of his life. they are its supports. good civil laws are the consolation of every citizen for the sacrif ices that political law demands of him for the city.“Good civil laws are the greatest good that men can give and receive.” Universal Declaration of Human Rights . political or other opinion. Finally. and they are always part of its f reedom. sex. Discours préliminaire du premier projet de Code civil “All human beings are born f ree and equal in dignity and rights… Everyone is entitled to all the rights and f reedoms set forth in this Declaration.” Jean-Étienne-Marie Portalis. the palladium of property. They are often the sole moral code of a people. and the guarantee of all public and private peace. protecting. without distinction of any kind. such as race.

I have been most sensitive to the Index’s development as a statistical tool which will have a wide ranging impact. There has to be a substantial content to the law itself. we mean more than adherence to the laws of the country whatever they may be.” Ellen Gracie Northfleet. President and CEO of the World Justice Project “The Rule of Law Index provides an unparalleled mechanism to help understand how law functions in countries around the world and assess where there are areas for improvement or praise. And that is one of the great values.” Arthur Chaskalson. former Chief Justice of South Africa “As an educator. I am optimistic that the Index will advance necessary debates to improve the policies.” William H. former Chief Justice of Brazil “When we talk about the rule of law. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation “As the most comprehensive measurement tool currently available to legal and judicial reformers. violence. Founder. www. hopefully. President of the University of South Carolina 740 Fifteenth Street. I’m convinced that access and equity in higher education isn’t possible in regions where a cogent Rule of Law is absent. corruption. thereby enabling comparisons among countries within a region or of similar GDP and. D. It is ripe with original.org ISBN 978-0-615-51219-8 . Neukom.” Bill Gates Sr.A.“The rule of law is the foundation for communities of opportunity and equity—it is the predicate for the eradication of poverty. 20005 U. procedures. N. independent.C. and practices that shape rule of law around the world. as a constitutional principle. and other threats to civil society. I believe. will be widely accepted as a means of improving judicial services. it must have a substantial element of protection of fundamental rights.W.” Harris Pastides.worldjusticeproject. In all cases.. If the rule of law is to have any meaning at all. of the WJP Rule of Law Index. Where there’s a culture of respect for the rule of law. Washington. as an epidemiologist. and interesting data – some surprising and some that f inally conf irms what societies have known intuitively for a long time.S. Suite 200. Co-Chair. the Rule of Law Index highlights the strengths and weaknesses of national systems. it is a bulwark against injustice. pandemics.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful